Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CRIMINALS (LIST)

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what department or organisation in this country is compiling an official list of enemy war criminals?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): Information regarding war crimes against British subjects which comes to the notice of the various Departments of His Majesty's Government is communicated through the Foreign Office to the Treasury Solicitor with a view to the submission of suitable cases to the United Nations Commission.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is the Minister aware that no comprehensive, up-to-date list exists at all? Further, is he aware that that is one of the reasons why Members of Parliament have not been allowed to inspect such list?

Mr. Law: The list obviously takes some time to assemble, and it is not the responsibility of His Majesty's Government to assemble such a comprehensive list. That is the responsibility of the individual Allied Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PREVENTION

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government have formulated plans to submit to our Allies at future conferences in the United States of America and elsewhere, for the purpose of preventing Germany, after the conclusion of the war, from starting yet another war?

Mr. Law: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND MEDICAL RELIEF)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that 10 Chinese soldiers are dying of dysentery or malaria for every one dying of wounds, special efforts are being made to despatch medical supplies and assistance to China?

Mr. Law: While I am unable to confirm the rate of casualties through sickness given by the hon. Member, His Majesty's Government have for long been fully aware of the urgent necessity of giving China all possible help in the way of medical relief, and have taken practical steps to do so, both by providing financial assistance and by the despatch of medical supplies.
As regards financial assistance, His Majesty's Government have made a grant-in-aid of £50,000 to the British Fund for the Relief of Distress in China and a further £41,500 to the Chinese Red Cross. Apart from this, large sums have been collected by voluntary societies in this country, notably the United Aid to China Fund. Pending the reopening of the Burma Road, financial assistance of this kind must inevitably form the major part of the relief we are able to send to China, owing to the difficulties of transport. Every effort has been made to send medical supplies from India, and important allocations—for example, 5,000,000 tablets of quinine—have been made in the past. At the present time the shortage of medical supplies in India, in addition to the difficulties of transport referred to above, constitute serious limiting factors. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the needs of the situation and will continue to do all that lies in their power to remedy it.

Mr. Cocks: Has the Minister noted the statement made by Mr. Wellington Koo in Philadelphia on the point, in which he gave figures? While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that it will be regarded, I am sure, with great pleasure by the Government and people of China?

Mr. John Dugdale: Can we be definitely assured that financial considerations are not in any way the cause and that the difficulty is solely one of transport?

Mr. Law: I am certain that His Majesty's Government are doing everything physically possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has a reliable estimate, respectively, of the number of Jewish and political refugees from Poland and elsewhere who escaped before the war; the number who have escaped since then; the number of Polish Jews who have died since the beginning of the war through Nazi treatment; and the expenditure to date of His Majesty's Government in respect of assistance to refugees?

Mr. Law: As the answer is long and somewhat detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Is any indication given in that report of moneys or guarantees offered to neutral Governments to cover the needs of refugee women?

Mr. Law: On that point I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication to which I have referred.

Miss Rathbone: Will the OFFICIAL REPORT say what definition of "refugee" is used, since the word is rather vague in its connotation?

Mr. Law: I think that the OFFICIAL REPORT will do its best to answer the Question, which is very complicated.

Following is the reply:

I am not aware of any Polish people having left Poland as refugees before the war. After the invasion of that country there was a very considerable movement of refugees in various directions. For further details I might refer my hon. Friend to pages 3 to 5 of the Report issued in 1942 by the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. As regards information in the possession of His Majesty's Government regarding the number who have escaped since the war from Poland, I can only refer to the figures of Polish refugees already or in the process of being received in the British Empire excepting Palestine; exclusive

of all Poles who have joined the Armed Forces, the number is approximately 32,234. No differentiation is made between Jewish and other Polish refugees. In Palestine the total number of refugees who have entered between 1st April, 1939, and 18th February, 1943, is approximately 39,227. The number of refugees from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia in this country at the outbreak of war was approximately 78,000. Since the outbreak of war 66,000 refugees from enemy and enemy-occupied countries have come into the United Kingdom.

It is obviously impossible to state the number of Polish Jews who have been murdered by the Germans in Poland since September, 1939, but the figure has been put at above 1,000,000. The expenditure to date by His Majesty's Government in respect of assistance to refugees from 1st October, 1939, amounts to £1,210,000. This does not include the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Health as no separate record is kept of cost falling on this Department in respect of accommodation and support of alien as distinct from British refugees.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE CANDIDATES (LANGUAGES)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any future curriculum for the Foreign Office, candidates will be encouraged to make French their first language, Russian their second, and not be encouraged to learn German?

Mr. Law: My right hon. Friend is not at this stage able to say which languages candidates for the Foreign Service should be required to offer at the regular examinations to be held after the war.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can we be taught American first?

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: As German is spoken or understood probably by more people on the Continent of Europe than is any other language, would not the policy suggested in the Question be rather short-sighted?

Mr. Hannah: Is not Spanish also important?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Wing-Commander Taffy Jones

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Air why Wing Commander Taffy Jones, D.S.O., M.C., D.F.C., M.M., after organising three stations for the training of Spitfire pilots, was placed on the retired list; and whether he will provide this airman with the possibility of further assisting in the war effort?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): This officer reverted to the retired list because there was no further employment available in the Royal Air Force for which he was considered suitable. It is not possible to offer him re-employment with the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that this man is one of the most heroic officers and, at a time when advertisements are asking for women to do jobs in the Air Force, why is this very competent air fighter kept unemployed? Will the right hon. Gentleman not look into the matter again?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have looked into it very carefully. I can assure hon. Members that we are by no means unmindful of the fine service which this officer has rendered.

Mr. Edwards: If this man were an Englishman, would he not have been employed in a very high post, and will not the Minister have regard to the intense feeling that exists in Wales against the treatment of this gallant man?

Mr. Granville: Was not this officer one of the greatest aces in the last war, and is he not physically fit? Is there no place at all in the Training Command for such a distinguished flying officer of the last war?

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no suitable place at the moment, and I am sure that the decision which I have taken is the best possible in the interests of the Service.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the question again.

Land Purchased and Leased

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air, how much land has been bought outright by the Air Ministry since 31st December, 1938, or other convenient date, and the total sum paid for it?

Sir A. Sinclair: The total area of land purchased in Great Britain by the Air Ministry since 31st December, 1938, is 58,223 acres. The total cost inclusive of buildings existing on the land was £3,760,433.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air, how much land has been rented by his Ministry; and whether he can give the general terms on which these rentals are based?

Sir A. Sinclair: 10,400 acres of land are held on lease at an aggregate annual rental of £40,267. The various rents were negotiated before the war on the basis of fair commercial value. Since the outbreak of war, land required for Air Force purposes has been requisitioned, and compensation paid, in accordance with the provisions of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister indicate whether, when these rents run out, the improvement on the land will return without cost to the landlord?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would like notice of that question.

Non-operational Officers (Clothing)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in the interests of economy and practical work, he will give permission for non-operational Royal Air Force officers to be issued with aircrew suits, and with the necessary permission to wear them?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. It would hardly be practicable to introduce this type of dress for wear by officers generally without arranging for its issue to airmen. This would render large stocks of clothing surplus to requirements and involve a big contract for new garments. From the point of view of economy the disadvantages are thus substantial, and they outweigh any considerations of practical convenience.

Commander Agnew: Is it not a fact that the present Royal Air Force service dress tunic still has patch pockets on it and pleated breast pockets, which, in the case of the Army, have been taken off on the ground of economy in cloth?

Volunteers, Northern Ireland (Ground Staff)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air why volunteers from


Northern Ireland are debarred from joining the ground staff section of the Royal Air Force; and whether he will consider the removal of this injustice?

Sir A. Sinclair: The restriction to which the hon. Member refers has recently been removed.

Requisitioned Farm Land

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air, whether he will make known immediately his decision as to the date on which certain farms will be taken over by his Ministry so that the farmers may know whether to proceed with the tillage of these lands or not?

Sir A. Sinclair: I regret that it is impossible at present to give the date when this land will be required. In the meantime, the farmers concerned have been advised that normal cultivation should continue in the expectation that they will be able to harvest their crops.

Dr. Little: Can these farmers in the meantime continue their farmwork?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, so they have been advised.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not a fact that land is very often requisitioned beyond what was originally stated and that farmers are put to inconvenience?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think that has happened in this case.

Bombing Targets

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether on any occasion instructions have been given to British airmen to engage in area bombing rather than limit their attention to purely military targets?

Sir A. Sinclair: The targets of Bomber Command are always military, but night bombing of military objectives necessarily involves bombing the area in which they are situated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (EMPLOYEES)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the new board of British Overseas Airways will continue the policy of collective bargaining; and

whether they will be prepared to negotiate with the British Air-line Pilots' Association?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. The requirements of Section 37 of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, will continue to govern the relations between the Corporation and its employees. I am advised that the Corporation, for their part, have every desire to work in close and friendly co-operation with the Association to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Granville: Has any member of this new board any experience of civil aviation in the past or ever been inside a British air lines machine?

Sir A. Sinclair: I really cannot see what connection that question has with collective bargaining.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware of the difficulties existing at the factories of British Overseas Airways because of the non-existence of negotiated rates of wages and conditions of employment; and whether he will take the necessary steps to expedite the negotiations which have now commenced.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am glad to announce that agreement has now been reached on the machinery for the settlement of questions which arise between the management of M.A.P. factories operated by British Overseas Airways and their workpeople.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Messrs. Short Brothers

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Air what types of civil and military aircraft and flying boats have been designed and produced by Messrs. Short Brothers; and whether the Air Ministry has been satisfied with the types produced?

Sir A. Sinclair: The types of aircraft designed and produced by this firm which are now in use are the Sunderland flying boat and the Stirling bomber in the military category and the "C" class and "G" class flying boats in the civil category. These types have given satisfaction as have others for which the firm has been responsible.

Mr. Astor: Is it not a fact that this firm has been established for 35 years and was responsible for producing the finest types of flying boats in the world on which all our civil aviation before the war depended?

Sir A. Sinclair: Questions about the productions of the firm should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production.

Mr. George Griffiths: They are asking this Question to prepare the way for the next.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Is any recognition to be given to Mr. Oswald Short, the head of this firm, for his great work for the Admiralty in the last war, his great work for the General Post Office before the war in the Empire flying boats, and his great work in this war?

Sir A. Sinclair: All the subjects mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend lie outside my responsibility.

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what steps he is taking to ensure that the shareholders of Short Brothers receive their shares back at the end of the war?

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether it is intended immediately after the war to restore to the firm of Messrs. Short Brothers, Rochester, their full rights of ownership and private enterprise, recently taken from them?

Sir S. Cripps: The shares of Short Brothers were acquired by me under the provisions of the Defence Regulation No. 78. This Regulation provides that, if it appears to the competent authority expedient that all the shares in the company should be held on behalf of that authority the competent authority may by order made with the consent of the Treasury transfer the shares of the company to his specified nominees. The Regulation contains no provision for the return of the shares to the shareholders at the end of the war or at any other time, but provides that the shares so transferred shall vest in the transferees free from any mortgage, pledge or charge.
The price to be paid for the shares is to be fixed as between a willing buyer and willing seller, and there is no provision whereby that price can be varied as a

result of any special condition attached to the transfer of the shares. It would not, therefore, be competent or proper for me to take any steps to ensure the return of the shares to the shareholders after the war.
The policy of the Government at the end of the war as to the disposal of shares acquired by them under the Defence Regulations will fall to be decided in the light of the circumstances then ruling. There is nothing in the existing position as I have stated it which would preclude the Government of the day, should it so decide, from making some fresh provision as to the repurchase of shares by the original shareholders in companies dealt with under the Regulation.

Mr. Astor: Is the Minister aware that while nobody wants to hamper his work in dealing with a purely temporary wartime difficulty, there is the gravest disquiet at the thought that he may be trying permanently to nationalise civil aircraft [Interruption]; and is it right to use a purely temporary difficulty in production to make a permanent change by the back door?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I am limited by what Parliament has decided, and I can only act within the ambit of Parliament's decision.

Major Lloyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that while very large numbers of people are not taking any exception to what he has done, they view with the greatest concern his reply to-day to this Question, because of the precedent which it is setting? Will he not be able to give a greater assurance to the House that what individual firms are sacrificing in the national interest during the war, and all the sacrifices for freedom which they are making, will be restored to them after the war?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that Parliament has decided the steps which should be taken in such cases as the present, and unless other and new decisions are taken, I must operate within the ambit of these Regulations.

Mr. A. Edwards: May we take it that the price which is paid as between a willing buyer and a willing seller will not be more than the price quoted on the Stock Exchange on the day this firm was taken over? Will the right hon. and


learned Gentleman bear in mind that in the case of a previous transaction the country paid much more than that?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not of course decide the price. In the event of dispute, that is decided by arbitration. That has not taken place.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister bear in mind that much of the capital is watered capital?

Sir M. Sueter: May I repeat to the Minister of Aircraft Production my Question that I put to the Air Minister? Will he see that suitable recognition is given to Mr. Oswald Short, the head of this firm for his great air work?

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the action of the Ministry in dealing with vested interests has had a heartening effect on production all over the country?

Sir Irving Albery: Arising from the Minister's reply to the effect that these shares would be vested in the Government, free of all mortgage or charge, how is it proposed to deal with the bank loans of over £1,500,000? Are these to be paid off by His Majesty's Government? Secondly, will he say whether the main reason for taking over the shares of this company was a financial consideration?

Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is in the negative. So far as the first part of his question is concerned, I should have to have notice of that.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production why he has found it necessary to take over the whole share capital of Messrs. Short Brothers; will the concern be restored to private ownership after the war; and will the existing shareholders be given the option to repurchase?

Sir S. Cripps: As regards the first part of the Question, it was in my opinion necessary for the purpose of securing effective control of the undertaking, that all shares of the company should be held on my behalf. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply already given to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor).

Mr. Lipson: Arising out of the answer to the first part of the Question, may I ask

the Minister whether he does not consider he could have attained the objects he had in mind by requisitioning the company at an agreed rental without taking over the share capital?

Sir S. Cripps: No; I am quite convinced that that method would not conceivably have worked in this case.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the importance of this matter, can the Minister give the reason why this method would have broken down compared with the method he has chosen, in view of the controversy which has arisen?

Sir S. Cripps: The power as regards requisitioning does not extend to the business, but only to the physical assets, and it is not possible to take over the physical assets without taking over the business.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We must get on.

Factory Management (Complaints)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what resolutions of complaints he has received concerning the management of a certain aircraft department, of which he has been informed; whether the dissatisfaction is general among the men employed; has any inquiry been made, and with what results?

Sir S. Cripps: Some considerable time ago I was concerned as to the efficiency of this factory, and I therefore caused a careful investigation to be made into its organisation and operation by independent experts. Subsequently some complaints were received in my Department from workers employed in this factory. It was as the result of the investigation carried out that the company, at my suggestion, took very energetic measures to overhaul its organisation and to improve its production. I believe that those measures will overcome the difficulties that were being experienced by the company.

Sir R. Young: When such complaints arise, to whom are they made in the first instance—to production committees?

Sir S. Cripps: Such complaints should, of course, be made through the joint production committees at the factory, and in the event of satisfaction not being reached there, there is the regular trade-union machinery by which they can go further.

Society of British Aircraft Constructors

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what are the activities of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors; and how far is it the practice of his Department to confine itself to placing orders with members of the Society?

Sir S. Cripps: The Society of British Aircraft Constructors is an association whose primary object is to assist its members and co-ordinate their activities. Apart from representing the main body of the aircraft industry in its relations with the Government, the principal activities of the Society at the present time are concerned with some dozen technical committees, which they have set up to assist in the promotion of aircraft production both in quality and quantity. It is not the practice of my Department to confine orders for aircraft to members of the Society.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Sunk Enemy Tanker

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the source of the oil contained in the enemy tanker sunk by H.M.S. "Sussex"?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Direct information is lacking, since, as stated in the Admiralty communiqué, no survivors could be picked up from the enemy tanker. It can safely be assumed, however, that her cargo was obtained from a source under the control of Japan.

Women's Royal Naval Service

Mr. Brooke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since to handle a boat in tidal waters requires at least as much skill as to drive a motor-car, he will grant members of the Women's Royal Naval Service, serving as boats' crews, as high a rate of pay as those driving motorcars on land?

Mr. Alexander: I am unable to accept without qualification the statement in the first part of the hon. Member's Question. As regards the second part, while the skill of motor-car drivers is recognised by placing them in a specialised category, which carries a higher rate of pay, the responsibility of the senior member or members of a boat's crew is also

recognised by a higher substantive rating, which again carries a higher rate of pay. Exact assessment of the relative skill required by such widely-different duties is impossible.

Flag Officers

Mr. Bellenger: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many admirals now holding executive positions have not had operational experience in the present war?

Mr. Alexander: I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind the officers of the Executive Branch of the rank of Rear-Admiral and above who hold appointments at the Admiralty. As regards members of the Board of Admiralty, I would refer him to the written answer given on 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). In addition, there are 15 active list flag officers serving at Admiralty Headquarters, of whom all except one have had sea-going experience during the present war. Three of these are captains, serving with acting flag rank. There are also 20 retired flag officers, of whom seven have had such experience. Five of the 20 are now serving in the rank of captain.

Major Sir George Davies: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many admirals then upon the active list had attained the age of 52 years upon the outbreak of war; and how many of them have since retired?

Mr. Alexander: There were 52 flag officers on the list, excluding admirals of the fleet, who had attained the age of 52 years on the outbreak of war. Of these 29 have since been removed from the list through retirement or death.

Sir G. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that modern warfare makes very great calls for youthfulness in mind and body, and that there is a large number of naval officers eminently suitable for appointment to flag positions whose ability we are unable to make use of because of lack of opportunity in the higher grades?

Mr. Alexander: I think that examination will hardly bear that out. It was in the course of this war that the Admiralty decided, for the first time in 190 years, to go down the lists for promotion, and that course has been followed in regard to acting rank.

Commander Bower: Is it not a fact that this procedure of going down the lists has been very little used—in fact, hardly at all?

Mr. Alexander: It has been used. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that naval officers like to be judged by naval officers.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is it not a fact that although acting or temporary rank has been given in the higher ranks, it has not been given to junior ranks, where it should have been?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

Buckingham Palace (Mounting Guard)

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Royal Navy have ever had the honour of mounting guard at Buckingham Palace; and, in view of the announcement that the Royal Air Force is to have that honour in April, if the Royal Navy is to be accorded a similar privilege?

Mr. Alexander: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, though the Royal Marines, who normally mount ceremonial guards afloat, had the honour of mounting guard at Buckingham Palace in the summer of 1935, the year of the Jubilee of His Majesty King George V. It is not proposed to ask for this privilege for the Navy while the war lasts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE (BRITISH GALLANTRY)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of gallant actions of civilians in the Colonial Service, under his Department, in meeting Japanese onsets in the Solomon Islands and elsewhere; and whether, in consultation with the Minister of Information, he will consider the publication of a booklet descriptive of this heroism?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Yes, Sir. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the really magnificent work which has been performed in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, both by the small and devoted band of British civil officers, under the leadership of the Resident

Commissioner, Lieut.-Colonel Marchant, and also by the Service Battalion and the Labour Corps which have been formed among the islanders. They carried on in the face of great danger and difficulty, and have been of real service to the American Forces in the successful operations undertaken by our Allies in that area. I hope that it will soon be possible to tell the whole story. Hitherto this has not been possible, for security reasons, but I am at the present moment in communication with the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific on the question of giving suitable publicity to the exploits of these men.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, REPORT)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement regarding the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Conditions in the Bahamas; whether the Government proposes to put into operation the recommendations of the Commission; and whether Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing the Report and recommendations?

Colonel Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) on 10th March, from which he will see that a copy of the Report, together with a copy of a Statement have been placed in the library of the House. I will send copies to the hon. Member for his information.

Mr. Riley: I asked whether the Government will put into operation the recommendations of the Report, and if not, what is being done about the Report?

Colonel Stanley: If the hon. Member will look at the Statement, he will see what steps are being taken.

Mr. Sorensen: Could some public statement be made? We are aware that this Statement is to be seen in the Library, but there is a desire for a public statement.

Colonel Stanley: A public statement could have been made by me in winding up the Debate a fortnight ago had anyone referred to this subject in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Sorensen: I did not get in.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (MEDICAL SERVICE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the discontent among Africans respecting the West African Medical Service, he is considering appropriate reforms; how many West African doctors have been appointed to the Colonial Medical Service operating in West Africa; how many West Africans hold responsible administrative medical posts in West Africa compared with Europeans; and whether the medical services in the West African Colonies are likely to be co-ordinated?

Colonel Stanley: Measures are under constant consideration for increasing opportunities for the employment of Africans as medical officers in West Africa. West Africans have not been formally included in the unified Colonial Medical Service, but 84 African medical officers have already been appointed to the West African Government services. So far, most of the senior medical administrative posts are held by Europeans, but the Medical Officer of Health at Lagos and his assistant are Africans, and a West African holds a specialist post in Nigeria. Measures to facilitate the interchangeability of African medical personnel among the four Colonies are being considered.

Mr. Sorensen: While I thoroughly appreciate that some progress has been made, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that considerable disquiet exists about the disparity of treatment between Europeans and Africans in the medical service? Could he not have a survey, with a view to co-ordinating the whole of the services?

Colonel Stanley: I am doing all I can. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen a letter that I addressed to the President of the League of Coloured Peoples. Perhaps I might send him a copy?

Mr. Sorensen: I have got that.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend considered the advisability and the possibility of having a subordinate medical service, such as they have in India, where it has done most useful work?

Colonel Stanley: That raises a bigger question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport on what grounds it was decided to issue Statutory Rule and Order No. 2533 of 1942 under the Defence Regulations, having regard to the fact that there is statutory provision for such an Order, in precisely similar terms, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 30 (1) (a).

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The purpose of Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act is to regulate traffic in peace-time with a view to promoting the public safety, and to preventing damage to the roads The sole purpose of the Statutory Rule and Order is to meet a war-time emergency and to save rubber for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the war effort and to the life of the community. It was, accordingly, considered more appropriate to make the Order under the Defence Regulations.

Mr. Etherton: Is the hon. Member aware that there is nothing in Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act which makes the limitation that he has indicated? Is it generally accepted in his Department that Orders should not be made under Defence Regulations where they can be made under the general law? Can he give an assurance that where it is necessary to make an exception that will be indicated by a memorandum?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We should never have dreamed of making this an offence in time of peace. It was precisely in order to enable us to take such measures as this that Parliament gave power to act under the Defence Regulations.

Mr. Pickthorn: What is it that the hon. Member would never have dreamed of making an offence in time of peace which is being made an offence under the Regulation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: To drive on tyres until they are so worn that the canvas material is showing.

Sir Herbert Williams: Did not the Act of 1930 contemplate precisely that? Is not that the only thing which has been done to double the penalties which Parliament decided upon in 1930?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, not at all. We gave very careful consideration to whether the Act did contemplate that, and we decided that it did not.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Statutory Rule and Order No. 2533 of 1942 is made under the Defence Regulations, when precisely similar powers are provided for such an Order under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 30 (1) (a); and will he give an assurance that Orders made under the Defence Regulations will not in future be used for the purpose of indirectly increasing penalties in cases where the law is not otherwise changed?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): While it is possible that a Regulation in similar terms might have been made under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that provision was designed for the regulation of traffic in peace-time in the interests of public safety and the prevention of damage to road surfaces, and it would have been inappropriate to use it to meet a war-time need for which it was never intended. The sole purpose of the Order to which my hon. friend refers is to conserve rubber as a measure of war economy and as such it is appropriate that it should be made under the Defence Regulations. The suggestion in the second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY STATIONS, MANCHESTER (TAXI-CABS)

Mr. Thorneycroft: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that, in view of the restrictions imposed by railway authorities limiting the number of licensed taximeter-cabs permitted to ply for hire on railway property, members of the public and Armed Forces arriving at the principal railway stations in Manchester are subjected to unnecessary inconveniences, particularly during the hours of darkness, by having to carry luggage to taximeter-cab stands a considerable distance from the railway stations; and whether he will favourably consider suspending these restrictions during the present emergency?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I sympathise with the purpose of my hon. Friend's Question,

but I am advised that the limitation on the number of taxi-cabs authorised to stand in the principal railway stations of Manchester was imposed in order to prevent the congestion of traffic, and that it is, therefore, in the interest both of the majority of the travelling public and of the railway administration.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that repeated representations have been made by the licensing authority for such accommodation? Are they not, in his view, better judges of what is needed for the convenience of the travelling public in Manchester than the railway companies, which are actuated by considerations of private profit?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir; with great respect, I do not think that that is the motive of the railway companies. These restrictions are also required to ensure the proper distribution of taxis throughout Manchester City. I think the restrictions have the support of most of the Manchester taxi drivers themselves.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that repeated representations have been made by the police authorities in Manchester?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I have no information to that effect. If the hon. Member will let me have such information, I will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAY STATIONS (DIRECTIONAL NOTICES)

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in order to diminish overcrowding and confusion amongst passengers in the tubes of the various London underground railways, he will largely increase the number of "Keep to the Left" notices; and whether he will consider putting up similar notices in French and Polish?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am informed that the number of directional notices in tube stations has been considerably increased since the beginning of the war. Where possible, the opposing streams of traffic are segregated; where this cannot be done, I am asking the authorities to consider whether it would be of advantage to erect


more notices. I am afraid that the addition of notices in French and Polish would tend to reduce the value of the existing notices.

Captain Graham: While thanking my hon. Friend for the reply, has it occurred to him that it is precisely those foreign linguists who in their own countries invariably keep to the right and therefore there is rather a special need for this?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that most of our gallant Allies have now learnt enough English to be able to read and understand "Keep to the Left."

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY STAFFS (WAR BONUS)

Commander Bower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the reasons for rejecting the claim for an increase in pay by railway staff earning between £500 and £1,000 a year; how many staff are affected; and whether the companies were willing to advance these salaries?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The decision not to pay war bonus to railway staff whose salaries are between £500 and £1,000 a year was taken in pursuance of the Government's policy on stabilisation and in accordance with decisions made in comparable cases by the National Arbitration Tribunal and the Industrial Court. The number of persons affected is 1,768.

Commander Bower: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that the views of the railways are conveyed to the Ministry by the Railway Executive Committee, who are the agents of the Government, and their advice has to be regarded as confidential.

Commander Bower: Why is it that this small number of salaried people, who bear a vast burden of responsibility, should apparently be the only railway employees who are not allowed to have an advance?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Because the decision was made by my Noble Friend after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and together they examined very carefully every aspect of the question. I think my hon. and gallant Friend ought to take it that the decision is final.

Mr. De la Bère: But where is the justice of it?

Mr. G. Griffiths: In the House of Commons. You have had a rise in wage.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWILL, WEST END HOTELS (TRANSPORT)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that conveyances are being used daily to transport swill from West End hotels to Essex, Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire; and, in view of the fact that the Westminster Borough Council has installed a food concentration plant at the request of, and subsidised by, the Government and that this is not being used to full capacity, will he take steps to stop this transport?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The concentrator plant provided by the City of Westminster, which is used for processing domestic swill collected within the City and several adjoining Boroughs is now working to its full capacity. Road transport is being used to carry swill from West End hotels to Essex, Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire under licences granted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, in view of the highly perishable nature of swill I think it is desirable that these movements should go on.

Mr. Walkden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Westminster concentrator plant is only working to capacity because Fulham, Battersea, Chelsea and other neighbouring boroughs have been added to it? Is it true that the Westminster concentrator plant was actually constructed to cover the West End, that they have continued to receive petrol supply to the extent of 1,000 tons a month transferred from these respective councils, and that it means a waste of fuel?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend can show me that there is a waste of road transport, I will look into it.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not very difficult to keep people straight?

Oral Answers to Questions — RETURN RAILWAY TICKETS (AVAILABILITY)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War


Transport whether he will arrange for existing return railway tickets, now available for one month, to be extended to three months, in view of the fact that the existing restriction to one month does not diminish travelling and failure to use the return half within one month involves an inequitable surcharge to the passenger?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. I see no inequity in the imposition of a maximum period of validity in return for a reduced charge, nor do I think that travellers are prejudiced by the limitation to a month.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that sometimes travellers have to remain beyond one month, that therefore there is no diminution of travel, and it means that they are penalised and have to make certain additional payments?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This great concession of a fare and a third rate for monthly travel was put on to induce people to travel. If we extended it for longer periods, we would soon reach the point at which everybody would be travelling at reduced rates.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that no one travels unless he has to do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is a case of long-distance travel, it is usually necessary, and will my hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is no occasion for adding additional inducements to people to go away and stay away up to three months.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

General Giraud's Memorandum

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Information whether he will endeavour to obtain permission to publish, as a White Paper, the whole or a summary of the memorandum that General Giraud wrote to Marshal Pétain?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I have seen a reference to such a memorandum in the Press, but, apart from this, I have no knowledge of it.

Broadcasts to Switzerland

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the

announcement that the state-controlled Swiss radio has introduced into its broadcasting service an English language news bulletin, he will consider what steps may be taken to reintroduce into the British Broadcasting Corporation programmes a broadcast for Switzerland in their four languages?

Mr. Bracken: The B.B.C. could not adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion for special broadcasts to Switzerland without overloading their crowded Overseas programmes. B.B.C. news bulletins are already available to the people of Switzerland in their three important national tongues.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it a fact that the broadcasts were stopped, owing to German influence, about a year ago?

Mr. Bracken: No, Sir.

Procession and Demonstration, Manchester

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Information why no mention was made in the British Broadcasting Corporation news on 20th March of the great procession and demonstration held in Manchester; and why, in view of its importance, this event was not recorded for the information of the country?

Mr. Bracken: I am often told by persons who have no knowledge of the heavy burden borne by the B.B.C. that it is overstaffed. If they were to report every demonstration and procession held in the British Isles their news staff would have to be doubled, and even then, by some form of magic, they would have to run a 48-hour programme every 24 hours.

Mr. Oldfield: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that this was one of the first processions and demonstrations in the North, he will consider, through the B.B.C., placing Manchester on the map when there are matters of this importance?

Mr. Bracken: I cannot add anything to the all-embracing answer I have given.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: On this particular date did not the greater procession start in Tunisia?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling that the provinces are neglected by the B.B.C. and that nearly everything is centred on London?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what Manchester thinks to-day, London thinks to-morrow.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a fact that Plymouth is neglected and that nobody hears anything about it unless I raise the matter here?

B.B.C. Staff (South Africans)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Information how many British people born in South Africa have been, or are to be withdrawn from employment with the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. Bracken: The administrative officers of the B.B.C. are so greatly overworked that I cannot ask them to spend a great deal of time and labour in going through the records of all the staff in order to discover how many British people born in South Africa have been, or are to be, withdrawn from their employment. But if my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me what particular point he has in mind, I will try to answer him.

Broadcast Propaganda Subjects

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation puts forward a large amount of propaganda for which it refuses any statements in disagreement, notably on vivisection, pasteurisation, evangelical religion, diphtheria immunisation, laudation of Pasteur, Jenner, Lister and others whose work has been largely discredited; and will he instruct the Corporation, with a view to securing a proper presentation by qualified persons, of the opposing cases on all such subjects?

Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. As the B.B.C. has quite enough undeserved troubles, I cannot ask the Governors to bring down upon them the avalanche suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am striving to make the B.B.C. a little more democratic and a little less fond of dictatorial methods?

Mr. Bracken: I have been engaged on that labour for a year and a half, and I think some progress is being made.

Viscountess Astor: Would my right hon. Friend like a little assistance?

Mr. Bracken: No, thank you.

Parliamentary Debates (Broadcasts)

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to the broadcasting on the 9 p.m. news on Thursday last of the Parliamentary Debate which took place on that day; and whether, in view of the unrepresentative nature of that report, he will take such steps as may be necesary to ensure that a fairer account of Debates in this House is broadcast to the people?

Mr. Bracken: I have read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It strikes me as being fair, concise and clear.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the important pensions Debate last week "The Times" reported 12 speakers and the "Manchester Guardian" 14 speakers, while the B.B.C. reported only three? Is he aware that there is a growing tendency on the part of the B.B.C. to report long, boring and repetitive Ministerial speeches and to treat the House of Commons with indifference?

Mr. Bracken: What the hon. Gentleman has said shows that he is not well acquainted with the different problems of the B.B.C. and the newspapers. The B.B.C. have, as a rule, three or four minutes to give to Parliament, while "The Times" often gives six or seven columns.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the report of that Debate by the B.B.C. that night the speakers who were reported were all Tory speakers and not one belonged to us?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman must look upon that as a coincidence, and he must also remember that we cannot suit all tastes in this House unless we get someone like the Admirable Crichton to enter the B.B.C.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the important part that broadcasting plays—I am not asking the Minister to direct the B.B.C.—will he make representations to them that they should fairly represent us?

Mr. Bracken: I will send them a copy of to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend realise that he has just as much power to direct the B.B.C. as any other


Minister has to direct any other company and that the charter of the B.B.C. is overridden by the Emergency Powers Act?

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Information how many protests he has received in respect of the news bulletins of 25th March in connection with the reports on the Debates on the Catering Bill that afternoon; and whether in future such reports will be of a more balanced character?

Mr. Bracken: I only received two protests. The remainder of His Majesty's 47,000,000 subjects in the United Kingdom do not apparently regard this news bulletin as having been unbalanced.

Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that no fewer than 10 people 'phoned up immediately that night to the officer on duty?

Mr. Bracken: I have not an officer on duty who takes 'phone messages in regard to the B.B.C. If Members of Parliament are attempting to bully the B.B.C. into reporting their speeches, they are doing a great disservice.

Post-War Policy (Political Views)

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether opportunities will be given by the British Broadcasting Corporation for representatives of all the political parties to broadcast their views on post-war policy?

Mr. Bracken: If I were to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, the B.B.C. would have to jettison some of its news bulletins and many important programmes relating to our war effort. I am quite sure that the public do not desire that these programmes should be scrapped for the purpose of airing political differences about post-war policy.

Mr. Granville: While I recognise the importance of the war situation, as we get nearer to post-war elections should not opportunities be given to the representatives of all parties to state their views?

Mr. Bracken: I am sure the House will join in congratulating the hon. Member on his growing recognition that there is a war on. The answer is "No, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-U-BOAT WARFARE (WESTERN APPROACHES)

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing hazards, any increased priority has recently been, or will be, granted for the requirements of the admiral commanding the Western approaches; and whether, in view of the urgency, such priority will take the form of providing, amongst other things for operational use by the Admiralty, suitable aircraft now otherwise employed?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are under continual review, and I am not prepared at the present time to make any statement about them.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason that this Question was put down is because of the constant references made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Agriculture to the growing menace in the Atlantic and the assumption that these Ministers know all the difficulties that exist, the knowledge of which is denied to private Members? That is why I put down the Question, and not as an embarrassment.

The Prime Minister: There are certainly great difficulties and dangers, but I think they are being coped with, and His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility that satisfactory and adequate measures are taken to bring us safely through this trouble as through so many other troubles.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Rhubarb

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why he has fixed prices for rhubarb, which include a large proportion of inedible leaves; and whether he will make it clear to housewives that, in buying rhubarb at the controlled price, they are entitled to insist upon having the leaves cut off before weighing?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): In permitting the sale of forced rhubarb with its leaf the usual marketing practice of the trade has been followed. On 20th March, however, my Department announced that as from 12th April, by


which date out-door rhubarb can be expected to be generally available, the leaves of rhubarb must be removed before sale.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not the case that part of the leaves are still to be left on, and what is the good of that, as that is not rhubarb, and is not even suitable to be put into the swill bin?

Mr. Mabane: It is a very small part of the leaf. Each leaf has to be severed not more than 1½ inches from the point where it joins the stem.

Mr. Mathers: Why is it decided by the Minister of Food that this should be charged for when it is entirely worthless?

Mr. Mabane: There is not much leaf, as I have indicated.

Captain Graham: Is it not a fact that rhubarb leaves are poisonous and that it is inadvisable for that reason that there should be any leaf on the sticks when they are sold?

Mr. Mabane: It has been the immemorial custom of the trade to sell forced rhubard as it is grown.

Orders to Retailers

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will see, in future, in issuing any orders to shopkeepers, that sufficient time is allowed for such orders to reach the branch establishments of each firm, thereby providing against the possibility of offences being committed unwittingly?

Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend fully appreciates the point which my hon. Friend makes. In general, adequate time is allowed between the making of an Order and the date on which it comes into force for all concerned to obtain copies of the Order, except when there are good reasons why prior information should not be given. Full publicity is, however, always given by means of Press and broadcast announcements and, in appropriate cases, by notification direct to each licensed retailer. Copies of all Orders are available for inspection in food offices immediately after they come into force.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to instruct his officers

that Orders must not come into effect be fore they have reached branch establishments?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. It is the intention that that should be done.

Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that occasionally when amending and consolidating Orders are issued, introducing not much change, they are so lengthy that it takes shopkeepers hours before they can understand them? Will he arrange to issue an explanatory note on an Order of that kind?

Mr. Mabane: We always issue a Press announcement which I think covers that point. As my hon. Friend is aware, the other matter is under review at the moment.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether in pursuance of the Government undertaking to simplify the purport of official Regulations, he can state how the Food (Local Distribution) Order, No. 291, 1943, modifies existing practice; and what are the objections to making the prescribed changes clear to retailers by the issue of an explanatory memorandum?

Mr. Mabane: This Order modified existing practice by providing that retailers' licences were in future to be issued in the name of the Minister of Food instead of in the name of the local food control committees. The change was made clear to retailers by explanatory notices issued from the local food offices.

Alcoholic Liquor

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider placing the sale of all alcoholic liquor on points?

Mr. Mabane: My noble Friend is of opinion that my hon. Friend's suggestion, even if desirable, would be impracticable.

Dr. Little: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that in fairness to all, when the necessaries of life are rationed, there should be rationing of a luxury like alcohol?

Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend spoke of points. I think he will appreciate the difficulty of proper pointing as between champagne and mild and bitter.

Viscountess Astor: Since the Prime Minister made that remarkable and wonderful speech denouncing pub crawlers and saying he wanted more milk for babies, would not this be the time to put some restrictions on liquor?

Mr. Mabane: That is a different question.

Commander Bower: May I have the noble Lady's points?

Dr. Little: As the answer to this Question was so unsatisfactory and as the matter is one of vital importance to the nation at this time, I beg to give notice

The prices paid to farmers in February, 1943, were:—


For milk
…
…
…
…
29·91d.
per gallon (average)


For eggs
…
…
…
…
3s.1d.
per dozen (maximum producers' price)

For winter cabbage
…
…
…
…
from 3s. to 12s.
per cwt.


For savoys
…
…
…
…
from 2s. to 12s.
per cwt.


For spring cabbage
…
…
…
…
from 7s. to 23s. 4d.
per cwt


The cabbage prices include quotations for produce that has lost condition, so
that the lowest prices quoted are not generally representative.

Corresponding average retail prices in February, 1943 were:—


For non-designated milk
…
…
35·63d.
per gallon


For eggs
…
…
2s. 0d.
per dozen first quality


For eggs
…
…
1s. 9d.
per dozen second quality


For winter cabbage
…
…
2¾d.
per lb.


For savoys
…
…
2¾d.
per lb.


For spring cabbage
…
…
4¼d.
per lb.

Corresponding figures for February, 1939, for milk were 14·87d. paid to producers and 27·50d. retail. Retail milk prices now remain uniform throughout the year; producers prices are higher in the winter than in the summer.


Egg prices before the war both to producers and retailers underwent considerable seasonal fluctuations. During the year 1938–39 the average price for first and second quality eggs in town and country markets in England and Wales (as returned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) was 1s. 6d. a dozen. During the same period retail prices quoted in the Ministry of Labour Gazette (which include eggs imported from Eire and other near European sources) averaged 1s. 10d. a dozen.


No information is available regarding cabbage prices in February, 1939.

Worthless Substitutes

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what action he proposes to take to protect manufacturers who have reduced their output at his request from new manufacturers putting substitutes on the market?

Mr. Mabane: Action has already been taken by my Department with the object of protecting the public from being invited to purchase worthless substitutes, and further action with this object is under consideration. I am not, however, at present in a position to add anything to the statement made by my Noble Friend in his letter to my hon. Friend of 10th February last.

that I will raise the Question again on the Adjournment.

Farmers' and Retail Prices

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the average price paid to farmers, during February, 1943, for milk, eggs and cabbages and the corresponding retail price; and whether he can supply similar prices for February, 1939?

Mr. Mabane: As the answer involves a statement of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Control Committees

Mr. Cocks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on what grounds the Ministry has taken power to veto representatives chosen by local authorities and trades councils to serve on food control committees; and, in view of the opposition which has been aroused, whether steps will be taken to rescind the Order?

Mr. Mabane: As I explained in an answer to the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) on 14th October, 1942, the modification incorporated in the Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order, 1942, does not give my Noble Friend any general power of veto such as my hon. Friend suggests. It merely enables him


to ensure that all nominees are eligible to serve, before they are appointed. The question of rescinding the Order on the grounds suggested does not, therefore, arise.

Milk Deliveries

Mr. Douglas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the complaints that under the rationalisation of milk delivery the daily supply in some cases is not delivered until late in the afternoon; that the milk although pasteurised has to be boiled in order that a portion may be kept till the following day; that it has again to be heated when fed to infants, with the result that it has been thrice heated; and whether he has any proposal to make for remedying this state of affairs?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware that the rearrangement of milk rounds under a scheme of retail rationalisation has resulted in some consumers having their milk delivered at a different hour in the day from previously. If the milk is kept in a cool place, it should not be necessary for it to be boiled in order to keep part of the supply for the following day. My noble Friend sees no reason for taking any action in this matter.

Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that experience has already shown that this step is necessary? If it is necessary in this weather, will it not be far more necessary in the summer?

Mr. Mabane: I do not think so. Rationalisation naturally involves some rearrangement of times of delivery in order to secure the necessary economies.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARROW HEMATITE STEEL COMPANY

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Supply whether he can make a detailed statement of the reasons which have actuated him in buying the Barrow Hematite Steel Company?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The purchase is not of the shares of the Barrow Hematite Steel Company, but only of part of their works. A contract has been made for the purchase of the steel works and hoop works of the Company in order to carry out improvements which the Company themselves were not in a position to undertake. The modifications will

be directed in the main to improving the quantity and quality of the steel ingot production.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask whether this transaction is not subject to the consent of the shareholders?

Sir A. Duncan: That is a matter for the Company, not for me.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the original buildings be returned to the Company intact after the war? If improvements accrue, will they be for the benefit of the shareholders or the public?

Sir A. Duncan: These buildings are the property of the Company. They were part of the works which the Company decided to abandon, before the war.

Mr. Thorne: Does it not show what the Government can do when private enterprise fails?

Mr. Stokes: Does it mean that the Government have purchased the freehold?

Sir A. Duncan: The Government have purchased the property, but whether it is freehold or leasehold I cannot say at the moment.

Mr. Stokes: If it is not freehold, it will revert to the landlord.

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Yes it will.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (STAFF)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Postmaster-General how many officers of the rank of inspector and upwards are in his Department; and how many have been released for the Forces?

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): There are 4,546 officers of the rank of inspector and upwards in the Engineering Department of the Post Office and of these 425 have been released for the Forces. There are other grades in the Post Office bearing the title of Inspector; the numbers of men on these grades are relatively small, and the information asked for in regard to them could not be obtained without extensive inquiry.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General how many women have been recruited to the Post Office Engineering Department since January, 1941; and how many men have been released to the Forces since that date?

Captain Crookshank: Since January, 1941, when the recruitment of women into the Post Office Engineering Department began, 5,411 women have been recruited and 2,960 men have been released to the Forces, in addition to the 10,487 released before that date. A further 1,300 are under nomination for call up, and additional nominations are being made at the rate of 270 per month.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' COTTAGES

Mr. Cocks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware of the adverse criticisms which have been made of the design for flat-roofed rural cottages which has been published; and whether he will take steps to ensure that cottages erected under the new scheme will be of a more artistic appearance?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I am aware that there are many persons in this country who are opposed to flat-roofed houses. I am also aware that many people, including competent architects, are by no means unfavourable; but I would point out that the reason why my Ministry prepared the typical designs of flat-roofed rural houses, to which my hon. Friend refers, was the shortage of available materials, which would be required to build all these houses with pitched roofs.

Mr. Cocks: Will my hon. Friend do his utmost to see that the countryside beauty is not ruined by the erection of hideous cubes?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health the cubical content of the new cottages to be built for agricultural workers; and the coat of building, including land, sewers and roads?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The cubical content will vary according to forms of construction. On the basis of the type plans which have been sent to local authorities, cubical content, including outbuildings, would range from 13,636 cubic feet to 15,592 cubic feet for parlour houses and from 12,180 cubic feet to 14,239 cubic feet for non-parlour houses. My right hon. Friend will not

be in a position to reply to the last part of the Question until tenders have been obtained.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the hon. Lady aware that during the last war the Reconstruction Committee reported, on their housing proposals, that it required a return of 12½ per cent. to arrive at an economic rental? How is it possible for agricultural workers to pay anything like an economic rental, and who is going to make up the difference?

Miss Horsbrugh: My hon. Friend had better wait until we see the tenders.

Sir H. Williams: Has the hon. Lady pre-costing people in her Department?

Miss Horsbrugh: The pre-costing people could give a forecast, but we had better not do that until we see the prices in the tenders.

Sir H. Williams: Cannot the Department make a pre-cost estimate?

Miss Horsbrugh: We can check that up when the tenders come in. We cannot say the cost before the tenders come in.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING REPAIRS, MERSEYSIDE

Commander Bower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether, before drawing up the new scheme for the repair of C (b) houses, to which small builders and contractors on Merseyside have been asked to assent, he consulted any representatives of the small firms affected?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. The scheme has been discussed with representatives of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, which has since recommended its members to co-operate fully with a view to its successful operation, and also with employers in the Works and Buildings Emergency Organisation set up under the Ministry of Works. Representations have recently been made by an Association of builders and contractors from the Merseyside area, which asked to be allowed to submit suggestions in regard to the detailed application of the scheme in that area. The representatives of the Association referred to intimated in the course of discussions that they accepted the scheme in principle but any suggestions which may be received from


the Association will, of course, receive careful consideration.

Commander Bower: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the interest of these small men will be considered with a view to the restoration of their businesses after the war?

Mr. Hicks: That is one of the points to which we give constant care and attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Catering Wages Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

SECRET SESSION (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE)

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

Mr. SPEAKER afterwards issued the following Report of the PROCEEDINGS IN SECRET SESSION:

The House in Secret Session heard a statement from the Prime Minister on the Sittings of the House and debated a


consequential Motion. A Division took place on an Amendment, which was defeated.

Proceedings in relation to Division:

Amendment proposed to the Prime Minister's Motion, in paragraph (1), to

Division No. 13.
AYES.



Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Foster, W.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Frankel, D.
Montague, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)


Banfield, J. W.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Gardner, B. W
Muff, G.


Barstow, P. G.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral, T. P.
Gibson, Sir C. G.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Gluckstein, Major. L. H.
Nall, Sir J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Grenfell, D. R.
Oldfield, W. H.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Oliver, G. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Benson, G.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Guy, W. H.
Pearson, A.


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Hambro, Capt. A. V.
Petherick, Major M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pilkington, Captain R. A.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Radford, E. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hayday, A.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Heilgers, Major F. F. A.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rickards, G. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Ridley, G.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Higgs, W. F.
Riley, B.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burden, T. W.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Rowlands, G.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Salt, E. W.


Campbell, J. D. (Antrim)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cape, T.
Hughes, R. M.
Selley, H. R.


Gary, R. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Isaacs, G. A.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Churchill, Flt. Hn. Winston S. (Ep'ing)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kimball, Major L.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M. (N'flk, N.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stephen, C.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Leonard, W.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-(Northwich)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lewis, O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Daggar, G.
Liddall, W. S.
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Sutcliffe, H.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dobbie, W.
Mabane, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Doland, G. F.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)


Douglas, F. C. R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thorne, W.


Drewe, C.
McGovern, J.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Maclean, M. (Govan)
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E.
McNeil, H.
Titchfield, Lt.-Col. Marquess of


Ede, J. C.
Makins, Brig. Gen. Sir E.
Tomlinson, G.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mander, G. le M.
Touche, G. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Marshall, F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Martin, J. H.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, G.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Fildes, Sir H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Walker, J.

leave out sub-paragraph (b).—[Sir Edward Grigg.]

Question put, "That sub-paragraph (b) stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 63.

Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Westwood, J.
Windsor, W.


Waterhouse, Capt. C.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Watkins, F. C.
While, H. (Derby, N. E.)
Woodburn, A.


Watson, W. McL.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Con.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wells, Sir S. Richard
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)



Welsh, J. C.
Wilmot, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Adamson and Mr. Pym.




NOES.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gruffydd, W. J.
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham E.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barr, J.
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Harvey, T. E.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Silverman, S. S.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Hewlett, T. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hill, Prof. A. V.
Stokes, R. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Storey, S.


Channon, H.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Horabin, T. L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Drioerg, T. E. N.
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Etherton, Ralph
Kendall, W. D.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lakin, C. H. A.
Willink, H. U.


Furness, Major S. N.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Linstead, H. N.
York, Major C.


Gates, Major E. E.
Lipson, D. L.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McGhee, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gledhill, G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Mr. Molson and Major




Thorneycroft.

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

Orders of the Day — CATERING WAGES BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th March.]

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(General Functions of the Commission.)

Sir Alfred Beit: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "existing methods of regulating the," and to insert "normal".
The object of the Amendment, which I admit may not be very happily worded, is to draw attention to the undue emphasis, as I think, placed in the Clause on machinery, with special reference to a certain class of people engaged in the catering trade. I wish to ensure that, when wages and conditions are satisfactory, the Commission need not establish a wages board merely because there happens to be no machinery for regulating conditions, and it is in particular reference to the small hotel and country innkeeper that I raise the point. In large catering institutions, chain stores and

establishments of that sort, the question of machinery for regulating conditions and wages is one of prime importance. Indeed, I spoke the other day in favour of Clause 1, which establishes a Commission for that purpose. What I have in mind is the type of hotel and innkeeper who lives on a more or less patriarchal basis and is very intimate and on good terms with his staff. This class of people is not much represented in my constituency, which is an urban district. It seems to me quite unnecessary to put people of that sort through this elaborate form of machinery when we know that for many years past, largely owing to shortage of domestic workers and to the fact that any shortcoming in this respect would soon make itself felt in the absence of clientèle, it is essential for the owners of these small establishments to treat their employees well, and no one will deny that in practically every case they do. I have met a number of persons who own these small establishments who are afraid that under this arrangement they will not be able to continue to operate. They have said, "If the House of Commons establishes this elaborate machinery, I shall be obliged to work my little establishment on the same basis as the Savoy Hotel or Lyons Corner Houses, and I shall have to increase my staff to an extent which will not be possible."

Mr. Montague: What does the hon. Member mean by "normal"—normal according to what standard?

Sir A. Beit: I have not any given standard in mind. I am rather hoping for some reassurance on the point. I cannot lay down a yardstick at the moment, and I do not say that "normal" is the right word. It is only because of the existence of these small hotels and innkeepers, where the personal equation is far more important than any regulation of the nature proposed in the Bill, that I move the Amendment, in the hope of some assurance being given to this type of employer that, if he is giving good conditions and good pay to his small staff, who have to work on a very different basis from that of very large institutions, he need have no fear of being compelled to close down.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, but I am glad that he has raised the point, if only for the opportunity which it gives me to give an assurance to the good employer in any section of the catering trade, whether a large or small employer, which he has specifically in mind that they have nothing to fear from the setting-up of a wages board. Indeed, for the good employer who pays good wages and keeps decent conditions the Bill will be of great benefit, because it will protect him from unfair competition from his neighbours who are not at present observing those good conditions.

Major Petherick: I should not have intervened but for the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. I feel that there is some danger, not perhaps to the very small but to the rather small lodging-house or hotel keepers, if too great rigidity is imposed as the result of the Bill. It may be that that lodging-house keeper will have to take on one more servant. Although the conditions, broadly speaking, of the existing servants may be good, none the less, if the recommendations of the wages board are too rigidly imposed, it may be that one or more servants will have to be taken on, with the result that the lodging-house keeper may have to go out of business. I hope it will be clearly understood by the wages board and the Commission that

great rigidity is not possible in an industry such as this where the hours must be irregular because of clients coming at all hours of the day and night. I hope attention will be paid to that aspect.

Sir Douglas Hacking: I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend said, but surely we are getting into a little difficulty with regard to the general classification if we accept the Parliamentary Secretary's word. He said no one need be afraid that the good employer was going to be prejudiced in any way. I take it that he means that the good employer will not have to be regulated [Interruption.] I am glad my hon. Friend shakes his head.

Mr. McCorquodale: I said the good employer had nothing to fear. I did not suggest that he was going to be left out of the scope of the Bill.

Sir D. Hacking: That is exactly my point. If he is brought into the scope of the Bill, he will have to be regulated in the same way that the bad employer will be regulated. If that is not so, what are we doing with this classification? The position is that the Commission decides whether or not a wages board should operate in any particular section of the industry, and, as I understand it, all the people within that section will have to obey dictates, Orders and regulations laid down by the board, and I see no difference between the treatment meted out to a bad and a good employer.

The Deputy-Chairman: We must not get on to the wages board until we come to Clause 4.

Sir D. Hacking: Inquiry will be made by the Commission, and the Commission is responsible for the setting-up of the wages board. It will decide definitely whether or not a particular section of the industry will have a wages board.

The Deputy-Chairman: I really must safeguard those who have Amendments coming later.

Sir D. Hacking: I take it that, if the Commission is dissatisfied with remuneration and conditions of employment, the only thing it is empowered to do is to set up a wages board?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point. We come to the wages board in a


later Clause. It is the Commission of inquiry at this point of the Bill, which is comparatively narrow.

Sir D. Hacking: It is as narrow as this. The Commission only has the power, if it is dissatisfied after its inquiry into any particular section of the industry, of setting up a wages board. Is there to be any difference in the treatment meted out within any one section? If I can have a reply to that, it will give me some satisfaction.

Mr. Montague: I think the Amendment is rather meaningless. The Clause has to do with inquiries. Either you make inquiries or you do not. To talk about making inquiries into normal conditions seems to mean nothing.

Sir A. Beit: My object was that if the Commission, on making inquiries into the branch of the trade to which I was referring, found that wages and conditions were, roughly speaking, as good as those for which they had laid down the establishment of a wages board in other conditions, they would agree that that particular trade was one which need not be so dealt with. In other words, the absence of machinery should not in itself mean that a board should be set up. I only brought the point up in order to draw attention to the position of good employers, and, in view of my hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Major Gluckstein: I do not understand how it is that good employers, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, have nothing to fear from this Bill. It might surprise him to know, and I hope it will not be too great a shock, that there are quite a number of employers and of people who are not employers who do not like regulation for its own sake. That being so, it seems to me that he is rather giving part of the case away by pointing out that people are to be regulated although it is obvious that there is no real need for them to be regulated by statute. They are behaving themselves properly, paying adequate wages and giving proper conditions of employment, and are exactly as they should be, but because an undetermined proportion of their competitors are doing the reverse all must be regulated and brought under this system. If anything, this strengthens the view expressed

by so many Members on Second Reading that the right way to deal with this matter is not to set up a Commission but to hold an inquiry first to see how far there is a scandal and how far it is necessary to have this system of regulation.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into that again.

Major Gluckstein: I agree, but we are discussing whether the Commission should make inquiries into existing methods of regulating remuneration and so on, and the Parliamentary Secretary gives an assurance that no good employer has anything to fear on that score. I am pointing out that there are people who believe that regulation for its own sake is not desirable and, therefore, they sympathise with the view put by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that certain good categories of people who are giving proper conditions and remuneration should be exempted from the inquiries which the Commission are to make. I understand that the Government refuse to accept that point of view, but I desire to say that I do not thing that refusal is right.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Can the Minister give us any idea of the proportion of the employees in the catering, hotel and restaurant trade who are members of trade unions?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): That is a point we do not inquire into, and I have no intention of beginning. It has been said by a number of people that the proportion is not more than 5 per cent., but I do not know. All I know is that there are no collective agreements in this industry, except in one or two branches, which rest on organisation on either side.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of REAR-ADMIRAL BEAMISH: In page 2, line 1, after "existing," insert "system of tips."

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not calling this Amendment, but I think that it will be in the interests of the Committee if we had a general discussion on tipping on the hon. and gallant Member's second Amendment, in page 2, line 3, after "into," to insert "tipping and."

Mr. Holmes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "applies," to insert:
and in particular the conditions of employment in undertakings which are only open for seasonal periods.
The effect of the Amendment would be that the Commission would be called upon to make inquiries into these conditions. Before I come to the arguments affecting this country, I want to refer to what has happened in Switzerland. About 10 years ago a Bill similar to this was passed by the Swiss Parliament and has been a great success. Those who have seen the working of the Swiss measure are satisfied that the reason for its success is that those occupied in seasonal work have been properly looked after. Switzerland divides itself up into five sections. There are the big towns like Berne, Zurich and Geneva, places for the winter sports, like St. Moritz and Pontresina, there are summer places round the lakes and elsewhere——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is in Order in giving the example of Switzerland, but we cannot have a Debate on the various forms of sport and seasons in Switzerland, as it might become rather wide.

Mr. Holmes: I was only giving the illustration of Switzerland to show that the seasonal places were those which had winter sports and those which were summer resorts, and to point out that the Commission set up under the Swiss Act have looked after the seasonal resorts in a different fashion according to whether they were winter or summer resorts. In this country the hotels and catering establishments which are subject to seasonal periods are mainly at the seaside resorts. I am putting forward this Amendment because my constituency contains five such towns on the East Coast—Clacton-on-Sea, Holland-on-Sea, Frinton, Walton-on-the-Naze and Dovercourt. The proprietors of the hotels and boarding houses in those places make their money in a very short period of the year. Even in the same seaside town the seasonal conditions differ from hotel to hotel and from boarding house to boarding house. Some keep open all the year, but they run at a loss about nine months. Others open from Easter to the end of September and others from Whitsun to the end of September. Even those that open from Whitsun to the end of September get only about two months

of good trade, but in many cases they get good week-ends. In one hotel at Frinton they had very few people during the week until the end of July, but every week-end it was full. The chef and a waiter from the House of Commons dining room went to Frinton every Friday after they had finished here and stopped until Monday morning, when they returned to this House. I had the experience once of having my lunch served in the dining room here and dinner served in the hotel at Frinton by the same waiter.
The conditions at these hotels are exceptional. There is no comparison between them and the conditions in hotels in the big towns which are open all the year round. The seaside hotels are overwhelmed in August and September, and they cannot let any of the staff off. Everybody must be there from morning till night, and people are brought in from the towns and villages near to help. They do only two months' work in the hotels and are not regular hotel workers. In Switzerland similar hotels are allowed to keep their people on for seven days a week and to give them one extra day per week when they were employed at the end of the season, either allowing them to remain in the hotel free of charge and given their regular wages including the approximate tips they would have received, or given an appropriate amount of wages so that they could go away and spend their time where they liked. All these things show that the seasonal hotels work under exceptional conditions which are very different from those of the ordinary hotel in London or the provinces.

Mr. Loftus: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes), because he has put before the Committee the special problem of the coast hotel. The conditions along the coast vary immensely. In Devon and Cornwall they have all-the-year-round trade, and to a less extent it is the same on the South coast, but on the Suffolk and Norfolk coast the season is short. In normal times people do not go there in any quantity till the end of July, and about the middle of September they start going away. If September starts with wet and cold weather, the season may be only for four or five weeks. In most cases the season is concentrated into five or six weeks, and the hotels shut down for eight months. About 50


years ago there were many hotels built on the Norfolk and Suffolk coast but so difficult are the conditions that the majority of them had to go into liquidation.

Mr. Bevin: I studied the question of whether I should make representations to the Commission when the Bill was drafted, and I came to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to endeavour to set out in a Schedule the particular considerations which they should take into account, because that would lead to claims ad infinitum and we should never get to the end of things. On the other hand, I indicated in my Second Reading speech that this was one of the features to which I wished the Commission to pay special attention, not merely as regards the provision of staff and adaptations of the industry to meet the requirements of the new leisure, which I am sure will develop, but as regards other matters which I cannot mention now because they do not arise here. As to the point about the length of the seasons, I am hoping that the leisure season will be extended as a result of this Commission's work, in conjunction with industry. Therefore, if my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment asking me to define conditions in the Bill, I will give him the utmost assurance that as regards this question of extended leisure, which I regard as vital to the well-being of the community for the maintenance of health and for other considerations, I will see to it that in any directions in which I have the power to give this case is properly studied. It would be frightfully difficult to incorporate all these considerations in the Bill without extending it to cover many others.

Earl Winterton: As one who has large numbers of hotels in his constituency I should like to support what the Minister has said, and I would appeal emphatically to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. If I may say so, he has put the cart before the horse. What we want in this country, especially in some parts of the South of England, is to get the idea into the minds of the people that this is not merely a seasonal trade, but that it is possible for them to live in comfort and sunshine all through the winter. This

Amendment tends to create the impression among the public that in this country there is some special seasonal period for the seaside, and it would be most unfortunate if the Amendment were adopted and most prejudicial to the hotels in my constituency.

Mr. Holdsworth: May I ask the Noble Lord——

Earl Winterton: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Member can make a speech if he wants to. Some of the hotels in my constituency might claim that they wanted to be subject to seasonal conditions and close in consequence, and other hotels which might be trying to keep open all the year round in order to get a winter clientèle would be handicapped. Therefore, I very strongly support what the Minister has said.

Major Gluckstein: I quite understand the reasons which prompted the Minister to reply as he has done, and I think there is a good deal of force in what he says, but I would remind the Noble Lord that while he is very fortunate in having in his part of the world hotels which can keep open throughout the year, my constituents invariably go to a place called Skegness—which is the nearest seaside place to Nottingham—and everybody knows that "Skegness is so bracing." It is extremely bracing at certain times of the year. It is quite impossible for any reasonable persons, no matter how much they desire to have organised leisure, to go to a place like Skegness in October or November, and unless the Noble Lord is in a position to change the climate, it is not of very much assistance to those who run establishments in such places to know that in other districts hotels can be kept open all the year round.

Mr. Holdsworth: Would the hon. and gallant Member also tell the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that working men like their holidays to coincide with the holidays of their children?

Earl Winterton: A very important point.

Mr. Holdsworth: It is a very important point. They cannot have a holiday at any time, like the Noble Lord.

Major Gluckstein: In his Second Reading speech the Minister pointed out that


he was going to extend organised leisure in a most dramatic way and so as to include great numbers of people. I come back to the point I made originally, that there are parts of the country where the climate makes it impossible for hotel people, with all the good will in the world, to keep open for more than a limited number of months each year. I can understand that the Commission cannot be committed in advance by words in a Bill to consider certain problems in a certain manner, but I hope that when the Minister gives his directions to the Commission he will indicate that he would like them to deal sympathetically with matters of this kind. If such a direction is given to the Commission, it is very likely to raise serious questions about overwork, long hours and other things which are now alleged. In places where the trade is seasonal there is no doubt that people have to work very long hours and under very difficult conditions, and we should all wish to see those conditions remedied. Unfortunately, accommodation at small places is limited and vast numbers of people all want to go at the same time. Personally, when I am on holiday I do not want always to be surrounded by people, but that seems to be the penchant of a majority of the population, who feel that the more they are surrounded by other people the better the holiday they are having. In these conditions places become overcrowded, and the amenities for the staffs in hotels and boarding houses are probably very restricted, but all that can be made up to them in the eight or nine months of the year when the public are not there. I hope the Minister will sympathetically consider this point, so that those who run these places may get "a fair crack of the whip," if I may use that expression.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I should like to support most strongly the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes). It raises a question which has been brought up in this House time and time again. The position of the seasonal worker has been very unsatisfactory, and whenever it has come up here we have been met with assurances of good will and sympathy. But that is not enough. Many of us do not like everything that is in this Bill but here is an opportunity for the Minister to

do something practical and concrete. The catering industry in many of our resorts has suffered from seasonal employment. Many of the better workers do not want to take jobs there when they know they will be out of work for half the year and are not properly covered by unemployment insurance. If the Minister would give a more concrete and specific direction to the Commission there would be a chance of something good coming out of the Bill. It is no good passing us off with assurances that the holiday season is to be spread over the whole year. It just does not work. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) may enjoy a holiday in the fogs of November and January, but such a holiday does not fit in with the ideas of ordinary English people. The Minister might help by spreading the holidays over the maximum period possible, but I think he should go a little further and make this Bill the means of rendering some concrete assistance to seasonal workers and not push them off once more with expressions of sympathy. I urge him before we come to the Report Stage to see whether he cannot introduce something to help seasonal workers.

Sir D. Hacking: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) that seasonal workers always have expressions of sympathy passed on to them, and there it stops. The Minister of Labour has given us an assurance to-day, but what does it amount to? I took down his words as far as I was able to do so. He gave an assurance that he would ask the Commission to give special consideration to the difficulties in connection with these seasonal periods. Is that really sufficient? Is there to be nothing more tangible than that? Cannot we have something incorporated in the Bill? I do not say that the words of the Amendment are the most appropriate words, but cannot the Minister give us a definite undertaking that he will do something for the seasonal workers? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Major Gluckstein) expressed some satisfaction with the Minister's words. I am afraid that I cannot share that satisfaction, and I would press the Minister to tell us now that when the Report Stage comes along he will do something definite and concrete—will amend the Bill to make


it definite that these seasonal workers shall have more consideration than they have had in the past.

Mr. Gallacher: I fully support the desire of the Minister to spread out the holiday season and to improve the position of this trade, which is at present a seasonal occupation. But I do not take any stock of the arguments about the weather, whether in Skegness or anywhere else, because we have a particular kind of weather in Scotland. In a play the other day one of the characters was looking out of the window in a drawing-room in Scotland and remarked, "One can see the rain coming down again." An Englishman asked, "Is it always raining here?" and from the audience there came a unanimous shout "Yes." That is not correct, of course, because, as an American soldier said to one of his friends newly arrived in Scotland, "We had a lovely summer last year, one Wednesday afternoon." That is the general condition of things in Scotland. I have been on holiday on the coast when there was snow on the ground, and it was lovely weather, and I have been there in what is called the summer season and had rain every day. There is another point about the holidays and children. In Scotland we have a staggering of holidays for school children. Part of the holidays are taken in the summer, part in the autumn, and there are certain holidays at the New Year, so that if the Minister of Labour is going to stagger the holidays of working people, they can easily be brought into line with the holidays of their children. I feel that it would be very much better for hon. Members to fall in with the desire of the Minister to make this trade a going concern and not something that is operating for only two or three months in the year.

Major Petherick: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in his very interesting and inspiring discussions about our climate, but should like to bring the Committee back to the Amendment. I am afraid that I must disagree with the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) in the plea he put forward on behalf of the Amendment, because I believe that if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave way on this, he would find himself

and the Bill in some considerable confusion. If it were made mandatory on the Commission to inquire into the conditions of one group of seasonal workers, at once there would come a perfectly reasonable demand that it should be mandatory on the Commission to inquire into the conditions in the brewery trade or in tea shops. If we start inserting categories of workers, we shall never come to an end of them; and when we think we have we shall find that one or two classes have been left out. The only thing to do is to leave the position as wide as possible—leave it to the Minister when the Commission is set up to draw the attention of the Commission, if it needs to have its attention drawn, to the fact that it would be right to inquire into the conditions of seasonal workers. This will not hamper the Minister in his general task or clutter up the Bill with rather unnecessary conditions.

Mr. Banfield: Many hon. Members seem to have no idea whatever how this legislation has worked in the past. To put these words in the Bill will be a big mistake, because they cannot be limited to the people whom the Mover had in mind. They will bring in all classes of people connected with the catering trade who are employed in the busy part of the day. The Committee would be well advised to let the Clause go in the way which the Minister has indicated and which will be better for everybody concerned, employers as well as casual workers.

Mr. Holmes: I was not in the slightest bit impressed with what was said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) with regard to this Amendment. He seemed to combine a maximum of heat with a minimum of sense. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. If I understood him correctly, he does not want to put particular words or subjects into the Bill. I understand that he is willing to give us a guarantee that he will ask the Commission to inquire into the conditions of the seasonal trades. If that is so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: I give that absolute assurance.

Amendment negatived.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "into," to insert "tipping and."
Although I see what is perhaps the futility of expecting to make tipping illegal, I should like to make sure that this subject is very widely discussed and that it forms part of the investigation which the Bill sets out to accomplish. My object in moving the Amendment is to remove from the worker the necessity of relying on charity, by paying him or her a full and proper wage. I realise the difficulties of trying to stop a custom which has grown for hundreds of years almost into a law, as customs have a way of doing, but none the less we should very carefully investigate the matter. All the high-sounding phrases about generous instincts and gratitude are very unconvincing to me. The conception that the customers in the catering trade should pay from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent., and sometimes more, of the earnings of the employees will not bear inspection by any fair-minded democrat. We are the slaves of custom in this matter. Tipping is an undemocratic system, invented in the time of serfdom, and even of slavery, to allow the rich to appear virtuous and generous. It sometimes gives rich people an unfair advantage, and unscrupulous people certainly take advantage of the system.
The Minister of Labour has just left the Chamber. I was going to remind him that when he made his Second Reading speech he turned round to us, with that characteristic energy with which he sometimes puts his points and which I greatly appreciate, and said, "I hate tipping." I thought to myself, "How much I sympathise with what that man has said." "Tip" or "tipping" does not appear in the Bill, but a reference to it occurs in the Explanatory Memorandum. If the Bill passes in its present form, I believe there will be implicit in the Clause which we are now discussing a reference to tipping, but it will be buried under a mountain of verbiage. I want to bring it out from under that mountain in order to see that we force it upon the attention of the Commission.
The Deputy-Chairman has ruled that we can have a fairly wide discussion on this question. Therefore, I cannot help saying that tipping is not an elevating but a degrading and demoralising system, both for the tipped and the tipper. It

is as if one said to a man, "My good fellow"—he is usually as good as we are—"if you do your job for which you are paid, I will make you a present. If you can give me something that somebody else cannot get, I will make the present a big one." I say that that verges upon corruption. The Committee will be well aware that we have anti-corruption laws on the Statute Book. Tipping cannot be proved to be corruption, but there are certain aspect of it which verge upon corruption.
I know that some hon. Members will get up and make excellent debating points, but I feel inclined to defy anybody to say that there is not a general truth in what I am putting to the Committee. If ever tipping was a virtue, and that is open to grave doubt, it has now become a degraded and distorted shadow of it. That it should be a custom in this Palace of Westminster, and in our own catering department, is no credit to us. We should give the workers thoroughly good wages. I do not say that tipping would then disappear, but the worker's conscience would at any rate be clear and so would that of the customers. If I were in the catering trade, which I am not, I should find it to some extent a burden on my conscience if I felt that people sitting at the tables in my restaurant were paying half the wages of the men who were making my fortune. I should not like it, and I should try by every means in my power to see that it did not happen.
It has been said to me that I have what is called a liberal mind—I do not know why—which is trying to get out of paying subscriptions, or tipping, or giving money in any way. That is a very easy thing to say, but I confess that in my dealings in the catering trade my tips have never been less than 10 per cent. and are much more like 33 per cent. of any bill I have ever run up in that trade. I do not mind the suggestion that if one raises a subject of this kind one may be criticised, but what I do mind is being subject to the slavery of what I regard as a demoralising custom. If one goes to stay at a hotel or a boarding house, the bigger and more magnificent it is the more certain it is that in the last few hours of your stay your happiness will be removed because it will be clouded by the spectre and anxiety of "Who?" and "How much?" Everybody knows that, and it


should not be so. There is the queue of expectant tipees.
This House of Commons is the final arbiter on this matter, and however difficult we may find it to do so we should shake ourselves free of this system. We ought to try to do so, even if we recognise its importance only by putting the Amendment into the Bill, when we shall have done something in the right direction. The Bill at the moment does not contain a reference to the matter. I am by no means an opponent of the Bill. The Minister is very keen to put the whole catering trade to rights. He is anxious to control and regularise the employers. If that is so, and I have no objection, why should we not try to save the workers from the stigma—an unpleasant word—of this degrading dependence upon charity?
In this connection I hear of what appears to me to be a very unpleasant aspect of the matter, which is that there are some—I do not know how many or whether they are a very large part—of the workers in the catering industry do not wish to have these degrading shackles removed from them and would like to remain subject to this age-long custom. They desire that the tips they receive should remain outside the ambit of the Income Tax. I do not like that. I do not believe any other Member in this Committee does. Some of these workers in the catering trade wear uniforms and look very fine. People have told me that some of them really ought to pay Super-tax. I do not know about that, but they appear to make a very considerable income. If a man in the catering trade says, "Give me a small wage and the right to keep all my other income from tips, clear of Income Tax, secret and untaxed," that is an unpleasant spectacle, and we ought to consider ways of checking it. The Committee have borne with me patiently up till now I rather expected to be interrupted.

Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member is doing well.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I would just ask the Committee to consider a test which each of us can apply to himself on this matter. It is: Would you agree to depend upon such a system to earn your own living? Would you care to pay for a post in order to live upon the

tips that would come to you if you got that post? We all know that such cases exist. I have no more to say except that I am anxious to see that we do not allow this matter to rest exactly where it is.

The Deputy-Chairman: Before we come to the discussion I think I have made it quite clear that we are now, on this Amendment, discussing the whole question of tipping once and for all in this part of the Bill.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I ask whether that includes an Amendment which comes later which asks that tipping shall be excluded from all considerations of wages? I am not quite clear whether that is so. I kept clear of that point in my speech.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think I should care to decide that at this moment. I think that so long as we keep to the general understanding an Amendment like that may be moved so long as we do not have another general discussion on the subject of tipping.

Major Gluckstein: Following on what the hon. and gallant Member said, surely if this Amendment was adopted, it would have the effect of making tipping illegal and there could not be any meaning in the other Amendment in his name. It would follow from this that there would have to be a sanction.

The Deputy-Chairman: That may very well be, and we may have to discuss that later, but we must keep to the general principle of "tipping"; good or bad, it must be discussed now, and anything else comes later.

Mr. Montague: I cannot let this Amendment pass without taking the opportunity of identifying the party behind me with the expressions of opinion that have fallen from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member who moved it. I quite recognise, as everyone, I suppose, in the House must recognise, that the question must be to some extent academic in so far as the problem is a very difficult one, and is complicated by the fact that numbers of those engaged in the catering trade believe in the tipping system and have no desire to see it abolished. The practice in the Palace of Westminster has been mentioned. I would remind Members, or at any rate those who have been in the


House as long as I have been, that a good many years ago an effort was made to do without the practice in the Palace of Westminster, and that effort was defeated by the employees of the catering department. They themselves objected to the abolition of the tipping system.

Major Gluckstein: Surely the hon. Member is referring to the Report of the Kitchen Committee of 1936, in which the Treasury was invited to subscribe £3,000 by way of subsidy in order to abolish tips. I understand it was the Treasury which refused.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot follow the Treasury in that matter.

Mr. Montague: No, I am perfectly correct in my statement of the facts that whatever there might have been in the Treasury point the employees did definitely object to the abolition of tipping. That, of course, indicates the fact that there are some people in the catering industry who make money out of tipping, make a good living, and I suppose they have the added advantage, if it is an advantage, of the uncertainty and the gambling suggestion attached to that uncertainty of income. There may be other reasons for it. I have heard it suggested that one of the reasons why waiters, for instance, would object to the abolition of tipping was not only that they were able to get out of paying a certain amount of Income Tax, but also that they were not compelled to tell their wives how much they earned. Whether these are the reasons I do not know, but it is a fact. But it only applies to those who do get a living out of the tipping system, and that does not represent the whole industry, or even the greater part of the industry. When I say "living," I mean a reasonable living.
I am perfectly sure, from what little I know of the lives and attitude of mind of the catering world, that the majority of people in the catering industry would welcome the abolition of tipping. It is uncertain, and it does not by any means always work to the advantage of those who take the tips. But even if it did work to the advantage of those who take the tips, I agree, and I am sure my party agrees, with the sentiments expressed by the Mover of this Amendment. It is a deplorable thing that people should depend upon the idea of being tipped or having gratuities given them as part of the income

upon which they depend. After all, it is a snobbish, class thing; it cannot be anything else. It does mean that one section of people can put their hand in their pocket and offer gratuities for service, the point being that if the service is required it ought to be given anyhow, quite apart from any kind of gratuity that might be offered. Either you give a service or you do not. Either the industry is organised for the purpose of serving the community, or it is organised for some other purpose. If it is organised for service, it ought to be part of the efficiency and machinery of that industry, as it is in every other kind of industry. No one in a shop would ask me or expect me to give him a tip in order to get preferential service from behind the counter [Interruption]—or a doctor or anyone else. It is degrading not only for those who accept or receive, but also for those who give, the tips. It is a degrading thing that would not be tolerated in a society which had any decent conception of human life and human companionship. I say that because I agree, and I am sure my hon. Friends agree, with the principle involved in this Amendment. As to whether you can abolish tipping or not, that is a matter which must be left to the Minister. It is an exceedingly difficult problem, I agree, and one which may not be solved by a Bill of this character, but I welcome the Amendment, and my party will give it every support.

Mr. McCorquodale: I hope the Committee will not think me discourteous if I make a few remarks at this stage in an endeavour to put before the Committee something of the war in which this complicated business of tipping is carried on in the country, and how this Bill is designed to deal with it. With regard to the Amendment, tipping is, of course, a matter which the Commission already have powers to deal with in their general inquiry. "Any matter affecting remuneration" would cover tipping, and, as my right hon. Friend said in dealing with the previous Amendment, he is not anxious to put forward any specific views as to what they should consider, otherwise we should have to make a whole catalogue of things which the Commission should consider. But as you, Mr. Williams, have suggested that on this Amendment we might consider the whole question of tipping, I must come straight away to


Clause 9, which is the operative Clause under which tipping would be considered in this Bill.

Sir D. Hacking: Tipping does come within the meaning of the word "remuneration"; there is no doubt about that, I take it? The Minister said just now that he felt this matter could be considered because the Commission had power to inquire into remuneration. Is he quite satisfied that tips are included within the meaning of the word "remuneration"?

Mr. McCorquodale: If my right hon. Friend will bear with me while I make my statement, I want to show under what conditions certain things that could be classed as tips might be regarded as remuneration, and what would not. We have made no specific reference to tips in this Bill, because the view has been taken by my right hon. Friend that the treatment of tips—and the tipping habit is a deplorable habit, but unfortunately it is with us at the present time—in relation to remuneration is essentially a matter for the wages boards under Clause 9. The boards will be representative both of the employers and the workers in the branch of the trade under consideration, and we consider them to be the appropriate bodies to deal with this, as with other wages matters. The general position which the Bill establishes, therefore, is that it is open to the wages board to provide in what circumstances and to what extent and in what manner tips should be taken into account. It is also important, I think, for us to realise that tips might in some circumstances be legally regarded as remuneration under Clause 9 (1) or as benefits or advantages under Clause 9 (2). That is what we have to consider and what the wages board will have to consider. There are three classes of tips which I shall describe to the Committee in a moment, and the Committee will see how far tips might be regarded as remuneration or as a benefit, or as both.
The first class of tip is the normal tip given by a customer to a worker. It is obvious that tips under this system are not any part of the remuneration obtained by the worker from his employer, and therefore Clause 9 (1) does not apply to them. Therefore, if the statutory wage fixed by the wages board is x pounds a week, the employer has to pay the man

x pounds a week regardless of whether he gets any tips or not. It is not thought possible that tips received under this system can be regarded even as benefits, since they are not provided by the employer or by some other person under arrangement with the employer. There are other methods of collecting tips, the tronc and the service-charge system. I am advised that under the tronc system the tips are pooled and that the employer or head waiter, as the case may be, shares out the tronc, paying certain workers a fixed amount and certain grades of workers a fixed proportion, after certain other costs in connection with service have been met. Payments received from the tronc are not remuneration obtained in cash by the worker from his employer and therefore are not remuneration under Clause 9 (1), when we come to it in the Bill.
But it is possible that tronc payments might be considered to be benefits on the ground that they are provided in connection with employment, by the employer or by some other person, for example, the head waiter, under arrangement with the employer. But, even so, this point is probably not of much importance, because the wages board is required to value the benefit, and in practice the value of tronc payments fluctuates week by week. Apart from treating the tronc as a benefit, it should be borne in mind that it is possible for the wages board to take tronc payments into account when deciding on the way the remuneration is fixed. The wage regulation Order could provide that the worker received from the employer a fixed remuneration, which, together with what he got from the tronc, amounted to the rate laid down. On the other hand, the wages board could follow a more general line and when settling the rate simply have regard to the fact that tronc payments are made. The wages board would have the right to take the tronc system into account in considering benefits, but not the other system.
Then there is the service-charge system, which is spreading widely in this country. This is a system of charging an extra percentage on the customer's bill in lieu of tips. The amount reaching the worker is paid to him by the employer, and is therefore to be regarded as part of the cash remuneration obtained by the worker from


his employment. Suppose that the statutory wage was £4 a week. If the employer paid the worker £4 in cash, he would have complied with the order, even although 10s. was obtained out of the percentage addition to the customers' bills. A wages order, on the other hand, could provide for £4 a week to be paid in addition to whatever sum the worker received from the employer on the service charge.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: There is no legal obligation at present upon the employer to divide the service charge. He can keep the whole lot himself if he likes.

Mr. McCorquodale: I do not know what the legal position is in regard to that. I am trying to show the legal position in regard to this Bill, and to lay down the principle that the man must get a definite guaranteed wage. It is possible that, in some circumstances, that definite guaranteed wage will be partly made up out of amounts collected under a service charge, or even conceivably through the tronc. But it is provided in this Bill that the wages board shall lay down a definite cash wage, which the worker must receive. I, therefore, think that this Clause and Clause 9 (1), operated wisely by a wages board, composed of the workers and the employers in the particular section of the industry—and therefore knowing the circumstances of that section of the industry—will remove most of the objectionable features of tipping which my hon. and gallant Friend described, and will guarantee the worker a wage.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: How does it do away with the objectionable principle? What is the difference between adding a certain percentage to the bill and putting the money into the man's hand? It is all tipping.

Mr. McCorquodale: I apologise if I have not made myself clear. I was referring to that point in my hon. and gallant Friend's speech about how objectionable it was that a man should have to depend for his livelihood on the generosity of the customer. This Bill will guarantee a definite wage. I hope I made a very complicated and obscure legal position as clear as I can.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The man is receiving a tip. That is the demeaning

point. That fact still remains. You have not done away with it if you say, "We authorise these charges on the bill to be included in the man's wages."

Mr. McCorquodale: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend understands me. We are guaranteeing the man a wage. We are not making tips illegal; indeed, I do not think that under the Bill my right hon. Friend would have any power to make tipping illegal, nor do I think the House of Commons would pass such a measure. We are laying it down that a man is to have a guaranteed wage from his employer, and the amount of that wage will be fixed by the wages board, which will know from intimate association the conditions in that trade.

Mr. Leslie: My sympathy is certainly with this Amendment, because if the wretched system of tipping can be abolished it will be a good thing. That system is one of the worst features of the trade. If we look back to pre-war days, what was the effect on many hotels and restaurants? They employed alien waiters at no wages at all, and those aliens had to rely on the generosity of the public to keep body and soul together. When the war broke out those aliens were sent to the Isle of Man or to Australia. Then we had the hotels and restaurants complaining about the shortage of labour, and telling the Minister of Labour that he ought to concentrate on winning the war instead of bringing in controversial legislation. These were the people who could always employ aliens to the detriment of British wage standards. The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the systems which operate at the present time. We know that one could not ascertain the exact amount of tips given to the individual, because the individual was not likely to give away the information; and under the tronc system, the waiters tell you, the manager or head-waiter runs away with the lion's share, and the poorest-off waiter gets the least. The service charge system is about the only one which could really be taken into account. If that system is still to obtain you will have to take into account and put a value on the tips, just as you would on the food, board and lodging under the living-in system.

Mr. Lewis: I was a little surprised at the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the word


"remuneration" cannot, in any circumstances, be held to cover tips. If that is so, it is desirable that some additional words should be put into the Bill. I think it most desirable that, as far as may prove practicable, tipping should be abolished. If somebody is asked to name a wage which is to be the fair equivalent, without tips, of some wage previously offered with tips, it is surely necessary for that body to know, approximately, what the tips represented. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, neither the Commission nor any wages board subsequently appointed, would have the right to inquire into what is happening now in the matter of tips.

Mr. McCorquodale: Under the Clause which we are considering, the Commission obviously has the right to consider tips, and the wages board will have to consider tips when they come to make their rates of remuneration.

Mr. Lewis: That, I should have thought, would be the reasonable thing. But the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that remuneration does not cover tips. What words in the Bill give permission to inquire into tips?

The Solicitor-General (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): If my hon. Friend will refer to Clause 9, I think he will get it quite clear. Let us start with the words we are considering now:
Into the existing methods of regulating the remuneration and conditions of employment of workers to whom this Act applies, and into any other matter affecting the remuneration…
If my hon. Friend will turn to Clause 9, he will see the words:
For the purpose of determining whether the remuneration paid or agreed to be paid to a worker to whom a wages regulation order applies is less than the statutory remuneration, the net remuneration obtained or to be obtained by him in cash from his employer after allowing for his necessary expenditure, if any, in connection with the employment…
For the purposes of Clause 9, it is quite clear, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, that only one of the three forms of tipping to which he referred will come into it. But the Commission, looking at the industry as a whole, would be bound to take tipping into account as a condition of employment. Therefore, the Commission could consider

it, and later on the wages board could consider it.

Mr. Lewis: Do I understand that while tipping is not included in remuneration, it is, in my hon. and learned Friend's opinion, included as a condition of employment?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry; I did not understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that. After what the Solicitor-General has said, I am satisfied.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I feel that the argument used by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment has covered almost every phase and every angle of the question of why there ought to be an inquiry into tipping, but I feel that the Committee are inclined to overlook one fact. When a wage is fixed for the industry, tipping will very largely disappear. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member may disagree. Let me give a concrete illustration. I speak not as an authority on catering, but as one who has had to handle labour for the catering trade, to help in determining what their rates of wages and conditions of employment shall be. I find that enlightened employers never raise the question of the value of tips. Their anxiety is to get the best type of worker, and to pay the right wage. Having used cafés where some of these workers are employed, I have never felt conscience-stricken when I did not leave a tip, because a trade-union rate of pay is assured for those who have rendered the service. Consequently why should anyone be conscience-stricken if a trade-union rate of pay is assured? [Interruption.] It is true in the main. I am speaking of a certain group; it covers many hundreds and possibly many thousands in the country. Many railway workers had set up their own canteens before the outbreak of war. There is no class of labour, at least affecting transport workers, more subject to the tipping system than railway porters. They run their own cafés, and, strange to say, paradoxical though it may seem, the railway porters never think of tipping the waiters or those who serve them in their own restaurants. We are going to spend far too much time in examining the tipping system and its results, because we are largely getting the London or seaside complex. If we face up to this question and


attack it courageously and get somewhere near trade-union conditions and rates of pay, which everybody in the country will recognise is the workers' right, I believe that 95 per cent. of the contributions which may be made on this subject will be cancelled out by the public themselves, because we have made up our minds to eliminate tipping altogether and to substitute proper wages.

Sir Frank Sanderson: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) suggests that if and when wages are fixed, the tipping problem will more or less disappear. I do not subscribe to that view. Most hon. Members will agree that the tipping system is very objectionable, but it is rather like strong drink. Many hon. Members and people in the country are averse to strong drink. Tipping will continue, and, therefore, we really must face up to the position of tipping. It has been suggested that if it were possible to have an extra charge, say, 10 per cent., added to the bill, it would overcome my right hon. Friend's difficulty, and there again I cannot subscribe to that view. I have travelled in most parts of the world, and those of us who know Paris will recall the time when a 10 per cent. service tax was added to the bill, but the net result was that we found that we had to continue to give a tip over and above the 10 per cent. service charge.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: It was so in France, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in Germany the system of adding a fixed charge on the bill and no tips worked admirably?

Sir F. Sanderson: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but my experience in Germany was that the tipping system was carried on, notwithstanding what he has said. I have known a case in Germany where a tip has been refused, but up to 1937 I myself offered tips, and they were accepted. Hon. Members know that in France the tip had to be given, if good service was required, over and above the ordinary charge. There is another point I will mention, which will perhaps come as a surprise to the hon. Member who said that no shop assistant would ever think of receiving a tip. There again, I do not subscribe to that view. Whether I am in a minority I do not know, but since the age of 20 I have

always given a tip when I have purchased a new hat. I do not support the Amendment. We have to appreciate that tipping has come to stay and that, no matter how we may legislate, tipping will continue. Therefore let us face it and accept it as a matter of course.

Commander Bower: There seems to be a good measure of agreement as to the undesirability of tipping but not so much agreement as to whether it can be stopped. I suggest that the Minister has, in this Bill, missed an extraordinary opportunity of striking a heavy blow at the tipping system in the industry in which it is most rampant. Most of the undesirable tipping, the Committee will agree, takes place in the catering industry. This is a very comprehensive Measure, and an opportunity of this sort is not going to arise again for a very long time. The Minister might have taken the bit between his teeth in this respect as well as in others. As we all know, it is an uncontroversial Measure. We are all, in every quarter of the Committee, whether we approve of the Bill or not, desirous of making it into a good Bill. I and my hon. Friends still think that it is a very bad one and that if the Amendment were accepted, it would be slightly better. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment for this reason only, that it will have the effect of directing the attention of the Commission specifically to this point and therefore indicating to them that they are expected to do something really drastic about tipping.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I want to utter only one or two sentences on this very important point, and I trust that the Committee will make up their minds that in operating this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament a decent wage will be laid down for the catering industry irrespective of tips. I do not understand the emphasis upon tips in this case in particular. When I was a coalminer, I got coal cheaper than outsiders because I was a collier. That is a form of tip, surely.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It is part of his wages.

Mr. Davies: That is exactly what the Minister said about this Bill. A person employed in a warehouse in London or Manchester is very often able to purchase some of his goods from the warehouse at wholesale prices because he is a


warehouseman. That is another form of tip and nobody objects to that. A railway man gets cheaper fares on the railway than I get, because he is a railway man. No one seems to object to that form of tipping either. The hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will be interested in the next example. I am not sure of my ground here, but I understand that those who work in breweries get their beer for nothing, and I suppose that those who work in distilleries get their whisky for nothing too.

Sir Stanley Reed: I think the hon. Member will find that those who work in breweries never drink beer.

Mr. Davies: Then there must be something wrong with the beer. I would like the Committee to clear their minds entirely from the problem of tipping. If you laid down a decent wage for this industry the tipping system would disappear. It has been my experience—and I have been long connected, as have some of my hon. Friends here, with shop life—that they used to decide wages upon whether a shop assistant lived on the premises or not. To be quite frank, the only way to abolish these extras or emoluments is to have strong trade-union organisation and trade-union rates of wages. If the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth once again will forgive my appealing to her, there is one way of destroying the tipping system entirely, and it has been done in parts of America.

Viscountess Astor: Oh!

Mr. Davies: Yes, and I wish the Noble Lady would follow me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where to?"] I was going to ask her to come with me in her imagination to the automatics in New York. There is no tipping in the automatics. That system of providing food in America is done on a very large scale, and waiters are not in sight at all, and therefore there is no tipping in that case. I repeat, therefore, that the Committee should give an indication, and I trust the Minister too—and I am sure he is right on this point—that the wages board will lay it down that, irrespective of tips, these people employed in catering are entitled to a definite rate of wages. I am sure the psychology

of the public will then be this, that when they know there is a decent rate of wages and proper conditions prevailing in this industry, tipping will be abolished of its own momentum.

Mr. Bevin: I think that all the speeches that have been made indicate that the step that has been taken in the Bill to try and tackle this problem is the correct one. If I may be allowed to give a tip at this moment, it will be to ask the Committee to help us to get on with the Bill and to come to a decision on this point.

Major Gluckstein: It was agreed that we should have a general discussion once and for all on tipping. We have had something less than an hour on this very important point, which is a very extraordinary question in this particular trade. I hope that I shall not delay the Committee unduly in making a few observations upon some of the matters which have been raised. I associate myself with what the hon. and gallant Member said in moving the Amendment. We all, I think, feel a sense of embarrassment when the moment arrives for deciding how much we are going to give, but that, of course, is not shared by those who are going to receive our favours. I have discussed this matter with one or two waiters, who told me some interesting things. It might interest the Committee to know that, as far as waiters are concerned, they never refer to the word "tip" at all. They talk about a customer "paying." They say that such and such a customer pays well; Mr. "A," for example, but Mr. "B" is a "never," which I understand is a term of reproach. They do not talk about tips among themselves, and although the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment used some rather hard language about it being very "degrading," "a stigma attaching to it," and "verging on corruption," and the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) in his Second Reading speech talked about a "humilitating system," there are a great number of employees in this industry who do not regard it in that manner. Whether they ought to is quite a different matter.
I speak with certain embarrassment myself, because the profession to which I belong—and the Solicitor-General will bear me out—was rewarded from time immemorial by a system of tips. It was


not considered proper for them to obtain money in the ordinary manner, so there was a purse fastened on to the back of their gown into which a grateful client put a tip. Taxi-cab drivers, barbers, porters and others partly live by tipping, which is a very widespread and ancient system which seems to have been founded upon the desire of the person who is being served to say to the individual serving him: "Here is something for a drink." You see it in the French word, "pourboire" and the German word, "trinkgelt." Tips vary for the services performed. That is the trouble with the system. So far as I can make out, a Freemason—and I have not the honour to be one—is a garrulous babbler about his secrets in relation to the person who receives tips and who has to tell you how much he receives in tips. That will be one of the serious problems when the wages board has to consider this question.
I do not think you can abolish tipping by law. I recite an example. When Mussolini came into power in 1922 he decided to abolish tipping by law. I was in Florence in 1926, the usual queue formed up, and the manager had to escort me out of the hotel because the employees were not a bit minded to respect the law. It is quite clear that you could not carry on that system in this country; it would bring the whole law into disrepute. If you had the tronc system universally applied, it might go some distance towards curing the trouble. I believe that in some establishments the tronc system that is administered is administered by a committee of the staff. There is one representative of each section that receives part of the tronc. In that way the system is equitably administered. Of course, a service charge, which is the other suggested alternative, is not really the solution because, as one Member pointed out, notwithstanding that charge, tipping still continues. I would say this to Members of the Committee: I am not conscious of degrading the person to whom I give a tip, and I hope he is not conscious of being degraded, but if there is degradation in it, ought not this House, before it applies itself to bringing in legislation, do something about its own Kitchen Committee? The Kitchen Committee administers a system of rewarding our staff by wages and tips. Are we, who have so many friends among the

staff and waiters in this House, to feel that we are degrading and humiliating them and that they cringe for the rewards we give them by tips? Surely not. Tipping is a system which a great many people dislike because they find it troublesome, but what the wages board is to put in its place is quite a different story. I think that we had much better leave the matter to the experts who have to consider it rather than giving any directions on the subject ourselves.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: As the Mover of the Amendment, may I say a few words as quickly as I can? First of all, as a large measure of agreement seems to have been arrived at, I would, if it was of any convenience to the Committee, be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. The only thing I have in mind is that I should feel very inflexible in regard to another Amendment in my name which follows on the Order Paper later, and which enshrines what I think the Committee have in general agreed to during this long discussion. If it can be made clear that tips would not be taken into consideration with wages, I would be prepared to withdraw this Amendment. I want the Committee to put in something to safeguard the maximum wage, or the minimum wage as we call it.

The Chairman (Major Milner): Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am quite ready to withdraw it.

Hon. Members: No.

Sir D. Hacking: I do not want to delay progress on this Bill, but this question of tipping is a very important matter. The point we ought to have at heart is that tipping, if possible, should be abolished. That is the general feeling of the Committee, but the difficulty you are up against is how you are to abolish tipping. Not only have you to consider the feelings of the people who have been getting tips, but you also have to consider how people who have been in receipt of tips would like it if they were abolished. When I was a small boy I used to enjoy tips for the messages I ran, even from my, own parents. Now I give tips rather than receive them, so that my mind is rather changed in this respect. I want to give an illustration which I think will prove


the great difficulty of abolishing tips. There is, I understand, a system in operation in certain restaurants in London which is known as the "Serve yourself" system. Customers go into these restaurants, serve themselves from the counter, take their food to a table and pay for it when they actually receive the food. Having finished their meal, their plates are left on the table. It is necessary to have some sort of staff to remove these empty plates. One particular establishment in London not long ago paid their staff, before they brought this new system into operation, 24s. 9d. a week plus meals, plus tips. They wanted to get some girls to work at merely clearing tables, and obviously those doing that should not be in receipt of tips. The firm wrote to their staff and asked whether they would remain with them or return at a weekly wage of £3 a week, plus meals—which did not seem an ungenerous proposition—but they did not receive a single reply saying that the new proposal would be accepted. In other words, it was paying the staff to have 24s. 9d. a week plus meals plus tips. I give that as an illustration. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wishes to make a speech, I will retire and speak later. I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I think I have the right to discuss this matter.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It has been discussed for three hours.

Sir D. Hacking: I have very little more to say. (An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be hurried."] I am not being hurried. I was about to say that you must consider the view of people who are in receipt of tips, and I ask that although we are all in favour of the abolition of tipping, if it is possible, nevertheless we must give some thought to those who are receiving tips. There are few of us in this Chamber who constantly receive remuneration of this kind, so that we are inclined to consider the point of view of paying out and not receiving. Let us take into consideration the point of view of those who receive. Apart from that, I welcome the proposal put forward in the Amendment. It is a pity that on balance we cannot abolish the present system.

Read-Admiral Beamish: May I request the Committee to negative this Amendment

and reserve their arguments, convictions and pressure for a later stage in the Bill, when by that time the Minister might be able to give us an assurance that tips will not be taken into consideration with wages?

Mr. Levy: There appears to be a good deal of impatience with regard to this Bill. A number of us have complained very bitterly about legislation which never comes before the House. Now when legislation is before us, instead of it being properly examined, the idea seems to be that it should be rushed through. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to investigate the matters which come before them, and here is a case for investigation of the Bill before us. With regard to the system of tipping, it is quite obvious that whatever legislation comes in it is impossible to abolish it. There is no hon. Member here who does not give a tip to a taxicab driver or a barber. Abroad, tips were recognised as undesirable and 10 per cent. was fixed, but that did not abolish the system of tipping. What is the use of passing legislation which would make tipping illegal when no one would respect the law? The laws that we make should be of such a character that they will be respected by everyone. We are bringing legislation into disrepute if we seek to prohibit tipping when everyone knows that it will not abolish tipping, and we are making everyone who gives a tip perform an illegal action and committing a crime even if it is not brought before the courts. If the Government are of opinion that tipping is wrong and ought to be abolished, let them put their own house in order. As far as this House of Commons is concerned, it does not matter where you go or what you do, everyone expects a tip, and they get a tip, and no one considers himself degraded by receiving it, and no one who gives a tip thinks he is degrading the recipient. Therefore, I say look at home before you look abroad and, before you start legislating outside the House, set the example inside. If the Amendment is taken to a Division I shall certainly support it.

Amendment negatived.

Sir Leonard Lyle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "welfare" and to insert "comfort."
I will try to set a new fashion and will be very brief. This is not really a very


important Amendment, but I think it is worth while putting forward. I do not want to obstruct the Bill. That does not mean that I believe in it. I think it is a bad Bill, but I will try to make it as good as I can. Beyond that I do not propose to do anything to delay it. Some of us think that "welfare" is a very far-reaching word. There is a precedent for this alteration in the Shops Act, 1934. It works quite well and we think "comfort" is a better word.

Sir D. Hacking: I have taken the trouble to look up the meaning of these two words in the best dictionary I could find and have discovered that "welfare" includes health, prosperity and success. We are dealing specifically in this subsection with any matters affecting the remuneration, conditions of employment and health of such workers. In other words, we are making specific mention of health, prosperity and success, which words are included in the definition of "welfare," so that there is some question of overlapping if we include "welfare" in addition. The word "comfort" is defined as general well-being, absence of trials and anxiety. I think that definition applies much more reasonably than the word "welfare." Of course this is a comparatively small point and I cannot imagine that there will be much discussion on it. It is certainly not as important as the Amendment we were discussing previously. I do not suggest that we should press it to a Division but I ask the Minister to consider whether or not "comfort" would not be a more suitable word than "welfare," especially as there is the precedent already mentioned.

Major Gluckstein: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have said. There is an admirable precedent for this word in the preamble to the Shops Act, the Road Haulage Act, and, unless the Minister has some weighty reason against it, I suggest that he might accept the Amendment following the sensible and useful precedent in former legislation.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment. I took part in the framing of the Road Haulage Act and "comfort" was put in there for a specific reason. It dealt mainly with the question of sleeping accommodation on the roads, which was then in a frightful

condition and is not too good now, and something had to be found to express it. The word "welfare" has acquired a definite meaning in industrial life and it includes the wider matters expressed in the definition. I do not think it would be wise to put in a dictionary definition of the word in the industrial sense now. It is true it is a comprehensive term and, to the credit of industry, it is constantly expanding with the healthy, intelligent development of industry that is going on from year to year. "Comfort" is a limiting word in the Shops Act sense. I want the wider word, because we are legislating not merely for the moment; we are not legislating for the pre-1939 period; we are legislating for the post-war period. In that sense, I am sure, the hon. Member will agree that you will give to the catering people the same kind of industrial relationship that is being given to other workers. It has had a vital result on the war effort and the expansion that has gone on, I believe, is altering the whole course of industrial history. Therefore I should like the word "welfare" included in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Holmes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert:
including the restoration, repair and re-equipment of undertakings which have been affected by events and conditions during the war and in which such workers have been or will be employed.
This does not apply only to buildings which have been affected by enemy action. In that case they probably have their claims under the War Damage Act. It applies to undertakings which have been affected by our action. In 1940, when invasion was thought to be possible, a great deal of the country became a restricted area, from the Wash right down the East and South coasts as far, I believe, as Bournemouth. People who had hotels and boarding houses were compelled to shut up and to leave. Most of them left their furniture and equipment, locked their doors and left the local police to protect their establishments as far as possible. In many cases there has been robbery, damage to windows and that sort of thing; the places have become shabby and the furniture is nothing like what it was. This is going on all the time and will go on until the end of the war. The Minister wants to re-establish the catering industry as soon as possible after the


war and to get suitable places to which our workers, who will have holidays with pay, can go. From Bournemouth right down to the West coast the hotels have been prosperous and will be ready to play their part when the war ends. But the people who were in the restricted areas have in many cases spent their savings and will not be able to start again at the end of the war, unless they are helped in repairing and re-equipping their establishments. The Minister does not want anything put into the Clause as to what the Commission should do but, if he is willing to say that this is a matter that shall go to the Commission for reconsideration, I shall be quite satisfied.

Captain Peter Macdonald: I only wish to say a word on the Amendment because I expressed quite freely on the Second Reading what I felt about the Bill and the setting up of a wages board. I am not opposed to wages boards, and I am not opposed to a minimum wage in the catering or any other industry, but we are opposed to the Bill in its present form. My chief reason is that it deals with only one aspect of a very wide problem. It does not affect the chief aspect which is the rehabilitation of the hotel and catering industry in what are called protected areas—defence areas which cover a wide field. We were told in the House yesterday about the ban on these areas being replaced after it had been lifted for two or three months.
Anybody who has not been connected, as I have been throughout the war, with these areas on the coast, from one end of Britain to the other and in particular with my own constituency, which has been a protected area since the beginning of the war, cannot realise the devastation they have suffered from the war through no fault of their own. One can go for miles and see boarded-up houses, shops and hotels in places where hundreds of thousands of people used to spend their summer holidays. If this Bill could deal with that aspect and the rehabilitation of the industry, I should be the last to oppose it but I do not think that that situation can be dealt with in a wages Bill. If the Minister is prepared to widen the scope of the Bill and set up a Commission which will have the power to rehabilitate the hotel and catering industry, especially in these areas, he will have the wholehearted support of many people. He will

have to deal with a wide subject which will include questions of priorities, of materials and labour and questions of rate relief by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Burdens are piling up on the people in these areas, year after year, without any relief, and they do not know from day to day whether they are bankrupt or not. The banks are putting pressure on them for overdrafts and if the Minister could make a gesture and urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose name is on the back of this Bill, to take action now and to give some encouragement to these people, who are in such a distressed condition, I would be grateful to him.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, as the Mover realised, because like the other Amendment it begins to extend the Bill to all kinds of subjects and problems. Nor can I, as a Member of the War Cabinet, be expected when we are discussing this Bill to give my hon. and gallant Friend an undertaking as to what I will do on a separate subject. I am prepared to give an undertaking that without waiting for wages boards to be set up and concurrently with the inquiries on that subject I will direct the Commission to inquire into and to focus specially on this particular point, in order that the Government may have the benefit of their advice on the problem. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that I should broaden the Bill so that the Commission could apply the remedy but I would remind him that the remedy involves the expenditure of money and this must be the Government's responsibility and cannot be delegated to a Commission. Quite frankly, having looked at demobilisation and the holiday problem, and because of the way they affect me as Minister of Labour in the other problems I have to deal with, I can say that the question of the rehabilitation of these areas is absolutely vital. Not only do I say that, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member when I say that for these people who have had the burden of bombing and the destruction of war in their worst forms, the priorities of labour and materials for reconstruction must rank very high. When we stop making munitions and look at our total building force, these are the kinds of things that have to be taken into consideration in allocating that force from the point of view of employment and for the


creation of employment for people who are being displaced from the munitions industry.
I assure the Committee that it is as vital to the Government to get these coastal towns and areas going again, as it is for hon. Members to see justice done to their constituents. There is mutual interest in this respect and I assure the Committee that there will be no lack of energy and effort to try to bring these interests together. I will not wait to deal with it from the point of view of the inquiry into wage regulation machinery. There is no reason why it should wait until we have settled all the ramifications of the Wages Boards. Both things can go on concurrently administratively quite easily. I give that undertaking and it will have my urgent attention in the interests of the people who have suffered. One thing this country will need at the end of the war is a holiday. I am clear in my own mind that when the "let-up" takes place, one of the vital things to save us from hundreds of other troubles will be to give a proper holiday to our people who have had a pretty tough time all through the war. But it is no good giving them a holiday unless we try to do what we can, even if we cannot do everything, to try to get the business of the holiday resorts going again. That involves assisting requisitioned places and a whole lot of things, and I shall be prepared to take every possible step in order that the Government can come to a final decision.

Captain Macdonald: Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Bevin: My experience of Chancellors and everything else is that a considered report of an impartial body which has investigated the facts, has far more weight than advocacy by fellow Ministers.

Major Gluckstein: I do not think that this concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter of equipment and concerns the Board of Trade and possibly the Service Departments who might have the surplus equipment which will be most needed. It is not so much building, as equipment that will be needed.

Mr. Bevin: It involves both. It is well known that there are in this country

thousands of beds and if the casualty rate does not rise very high, there will be an immediate surplus. It is that kind of thing, stores, blankets, bedding and so on, that ought to be brought together in the inquiries to see to what extent they can be used for what I regard as not merely a question of restoring the hotel and catering business, but as an important social purpose.

Mr. Robinson: While the Committee has great sympathy with my hon. Friend's plea for help in restoring property damaged by the war, I feel that such a provision as he proposes is outside the scope of a Bill dealing with living conditions within the industry. The Minister in his reply gave a great deal of encouragement to all of us. It is not only the resorts on the East and South-East coast that have suffered. War decay has taken place all round the coast, where Government Departments have requisitioned hotels and furniture. Many of them will be badly damaged and help will be required in replacing them and getting the industry on its feet. I feel confident that in raising this point my hon. Friend did not want to suggest that the resorts will require any priorities over other areas which have been damaged by enemy action. They will want help, but we realise that we shall have to take our share of help along with Coventry and other cities which have been blitzed.

Mr. Spearman: I am glad to hear the Minister's assurance but I want to suggest that the Commission should be directed to examine the terms under which the requisitioning authorities took over various hotels. There has, unfortunately, in my opinion been no uniformity of practice in the terms of requisitioning. One Government Department have used their compulsory powers to take over hotels on such terms that in many cases the proprietors are so impoverished that they will not be able to reopen after the war, and so afford the opportunities for holidays which the Minister wants the people to have. I do want to urge that the Commission should survey the terms on which the hotels have been requisitioned.

Mr. Loftus: I would like as one who represents a coastal district to say, as every Member representing these areas will say, how indebted we are to my right hon. Friend for the assurance he has just


given. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Major Gluckstein) said that the main trouble after the war would be equipment, but it is hard to say what the priorities should be, because, in some towns, hotels and boarding houses have been requisitioned and three out of four, possibly four out of five, will have to be largely reconstructed owing to the damage that has been done. That will be an urgent matter. I would ask my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind and to remember, also, that it will be no use waiting until the end of the war. These priorities will have to be fixed before the termination of hostilities so as to get the industry in order. Unless the industry in the coastal towns gets into working order, very soon after the war the effect on the finances of the local authorities concerned will be disastrous. The municipalities must depend largely on visitors and the catering industry. They have been hard hit by the war and, therefore, from the point of view of healthy local government, it is essential that immediately after the war the catering industry in coastal towns should be restored.

Sir D. Hacking: The Committee may be surprised that I should rise on this occasion in order to thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that it was a proper reply, if I may be allowed to say so. It is wrong that consideration should be given to the restoration, repair and equipment of hotels, restaurants and boarding establishments under the terms of this Bill. The existing conditions will be dealt with; by that I mean the conditions which concern all hotels and restaurants at the present time or any particular time. We must all thank the Minister for his assurance. I am sure that he is right in saying that there will be no lack of energy on his part, and that he will focus the mind of the Government on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes). It is obviously not the duty of the Minister of Labour as Minister of Labour to deal with those questions, though no doubt it would be his duty as a member of the Cabinet, and it is a very good thing that he will undertake to use his great influence in the direction of persuading not only the Board of Trade but the Ministry of Town and Country Planning,

and especially the Treasury, that something must be provided either in the way of cash or kind for undertakings which have suffered so much in the war.
The right hon. Gentleman said that after this war everybody would require a holiday, and that is true, and he told us that he was proud of having founded the Workers' Travel Association. I am sure that Association will use its influence with the Government, because the Minister said it was just as well to have influences from outside brought to bear. I am interested in another travel association, whose duty it is to help with renovations of this kind. Again I express by gratitude to the Minister—and I hope he will chalk this up to me—for the consideration he has promised to give to the appeals which have been made to him, and I hope very much that he will be successful in his endeavours to get something either in cash or kind in order to help to restore these great dilapidations.

Mr. Holmes: In view of what the Minister has said, for which I am very grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert:
including the advisability of setting up representative joint committees in catering undertakings.
I am moving this Amendment in order to try to get it made clear whether matters of the kind referred to in the Amendment lie within the scope of the Measure. We all realise the tremendous value of these joint committees in industry during the last year or two, and in particular industries long before that. On those committees representatives of the management take their place with representatives of various groups of the workers, and there is an opportunity for suggestions to be made, for explanations to be given of why certain policies are being carried out, and for complaints to be put forward and considered. It introduces sympathetic human machinery, and in many cases that makes all the difference between continuous friction and misunderstanding in an undertaking and a spirit of good will and co-operation. If this machinery can exist in factories and is so successful, I cannot see why similiar machinery, suit-


ably adapted, cannot be introduced into catering establishments. I do not, of course, mean small establishments with half-a-dozen or a dozen employees, but I should have thought one of Lyons' Corner Houses, for example, could very well do with a committee on which there would be the management, at the top, sitting with chosen representatives of the cooks and the waiters and the floor managers and any other classes of labour employed.

Mr. Levy: What about the customers?

Mr. Mander: I was talking about employees. It is not the usual practice to bring in customers. I would not put forward such a revolutionary proposal as my hon. Friend has suggested. I hope that if the Minister does not accept this Amendment—and I do not want to cumber the Statute Book with a whole lot of special directions—he will at least indicate that it does come within the scope of the Commission to investigate a question of this kind and to make suitable recommendations.

Mr. Bevin: I would remind my hon. Friend that though these committees are operating in factories to-day, they were not in factories in the original conception, and that to some extent it has been a case of growth. While I want to make it clear that this or any other form of organisation can be developed, I must say, as a colleague of mine remarked to me while the hon. Member was speaking, "One step is enough for me." I think I had better get on with the wages boards and all the other business in the original conception of this Measure. People who are not accustomed to organisation might wreck things if this were introduced too early. On the other hand, it is clear that the powers are in the Bill and can be exercised, and as the Commission are a standing Commission, they will be able to review the situation from time to time; but I could not agree to put the Amendment in the Bill. The only reason I am entering this caveat is that if the Commission should recommend a wages board for a particular branch of the industry, I want them to start right away; I do not want them to get on to the question of shop committees and all the rest before they have built their centre, because it must be remembered that we shall be dealing with people who in many cases have not been accustomed to any organisation.

In that sense I just enter this little caveat On the other hand, I make it clear that the power is in the Bill for the thing to develop as time goes on.

Mr. Mander: I am not at all sure that it might not facilitate the working of the wages machinery to have some committee of this kind in operation. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making it clear that the powers which I desire are already in the Bill, and that if the Commission are not directed to give their attention to this point at the beginning, they will be later on. No doubt the Commission will study this Debate, and, if possible, I shall direct their attention to this particular matter in order that they may apply their minds to a problem which I regard as of very real importance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir L. Lyle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out paragraph (b).
This paragraph says the Commission
shall make such recommendations (if any) as they think fit to any government department with respect to any matter affecting the remuneration, conditions of employment, health or welfare of such workers.
This is not a very vital point, but many of us think it would be quite sufficient if the Commission were to report to the responsible Minister the result of their investigations. It seems wholly undesirable that the Commission should scatter their recommendations among all the other Government Departments which are not really concerned with the Bill. If those Departments are affected, they can be informed by the Minister of Labour who, after all, is answerable to Parliament for the action which the Commission have taken.

Mr. Bevin: To accept this Amendment would, I think, handicap us in doing all the things which it was desired a few minutes ago that we should do. Then I gave a wide undertaking, and surely the Committee would not want recommendations made by the Commission upon a wide problem to be locked up in the Ministry of Labour. Surely if the Commission come across a problem affecting some Departments of the Government, it is far better that the Commission's opinion should go to the Ministers of those Departments with the weight of the Commission


behind it. Otherwise, I shall become only a post office, and the Commission will not have their recognised place as the authoritative body to report to any Minister. I have agreed that the Commission shall present an annual report, and when that comes before this House if the Commission has made a recommendation to the Minister of a Department and it has not been adopted, the criticism should come on that Minister's Vote, because he would have received a report from the Commission. From the point of view of making effective use of the Commission, I should think my proposal is better than that of the hon. Member. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Will the Minister kindly explain to us what Ministries could be affected?

Mr. Bevin: Take just one point which was suggested to me, that in the restoration of buildings not only should labour be given priority to assist but material. Obviously, in that case the Ministry of Works are affected, as they control the material. The same thing applies to many things affecting the Ministry of Health. The point was put to me with regard to the equipment of the Services, and who should have the surpluses. You therefore need to bring the thing together. If the Commission focus these things, you want them to be able to send their report to the Department concerned.

Major Petherick: I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. The case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment seems very much stronger. It would be rather unwise to turn this Commission into a roving Commission. I can conceive of very few Ministries that might not receive recommendations from the Commission. There is the Ministry of Works, about buildings, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry on questions of demobilisation, the Board of Trade on general questions of supply, and the Home Office on the question of immigration. The Ministry of Agriculture would come in on the general question of the production of food and the use to which it was put by the employees in the catering industry, and, last but not least, there is the Treasury. That is a very wide choice for the Commission, and I am afraid the Commission might spend

a good deal too much time chasing hares and recommending delightful things for the catering industry to various Ministries instead of doing the main job for which it will be set up, namely, to examine the question of wages and conditions. It would be far better if the Minister of Labour sat at the receipt of custom and—if I may mix my metaphors—acted as a sort of sieve. The Ministry of Labour have set up this elaborate machinery and were the authors of the Bill, and the Minister of the day should take very considerable responsibility. Is it not better that he should receive all the recommendations from the Commission so that he may examine them, vet them and pass them on if he thinks they are good?
One further reason seems to commend that particular method of approach. The recommendations of the Commission may very well affect labour in other industries, and for that reason it is necessary that before these recommendations go on to further Ministries, the Minister of Labour should have a chance to consider them. Even if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment now, I hope he will not completely close his mind to the arguments that have been used and will consider between now and the Report stage whether there is not something in what we have said upon an aspect which has not previously been considered.

Mr. Bevin: I tried in the Bill to give this industry and the Commission exactly the same facilities and powers that any industrial council have. Any joint body has this right in its constitution, and in practice uses it. I have gone through this process for many years. If a body representing an industry has been inquiring into a problem affecting the Home Office, it has reported to the Home Office and asked for its consideration. It is difficult in matters of this kind to make one Minister a sort of instructor to all the other Ministers, where an independent Commission is reporting upon a particular phase of the subject. Would there not be a little confusion? On all the wage board business, the Commission will report to the Minister of Labour, it is clear, but in all extraneous matters taken to the Commission for inquiry, the Commission will report to the appropriate Department. I am willing however to keep an open mind, or at least to see, between now and the Report stage, whether anything further ought to


be done. I told hon. Members that I tried to give to the catering industry the same facilities as exist in all industries that enjoy their own arrangements, and I think that the catering industry is grateful for it.

Mr. Colegate: I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted the Amendment. He does not seem fully to have realised what the effect of the Sub-section is. To appreciate it fully, one must refer to the Minister's speech on the Second Reading, a very powerful speech, in which he sketched out, I should imagine, fuller powers than any set of Commissioners has had. It is germane to the Clause to remind hon. Members what this Commission might do. The Minister said:
That brings in a study of university procedure. It has nothing to do with trade at all. The universities will have to adapt themselves. We cannot have all the examinations in June. If we can get an examination of the problem by the Commission.…"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1943; col. 1209, Vol. 386.]
What will happen under the Sub-section? The President of the Board of Education, without his knowledge or consent, may have the Commission coming to him. If the Commission does what the Minister spoke of during the Second Reading, the President of the Board of Education is bound sooner or later to have the Commission coming to him and saying, "You are the President of the Board of Education. We have looked into this question of university procedure. You have to alter it."—I am using the Minister's own words.—"We are going to have the whole education system altered and we are going to start with the universities." It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head, because that was stated by the Minister during the Second Reading of the Bill. In the Home Office there is an Aliens Immigration Restrictions Department. I had something to do with it at one time, and I know it was run very efficiently. Suppose the Minister goes into the whole question of aliens and asks the Commission to consider the matter, in accordance with any agreement that they may make with foreign Powers. One day the Home Office will wake up and find that the Commission has made an agreement with some foreign Power. The Immigration Department will find the same thing. This is a practical case, because it

is set out in detail in the Minister's Second Reading speech as what he is going to do.
In view of that speech, the Committee ought not to allow the Clause to stand in the Bill. In the form in which it has been given to us by means of the Second Reading speech it is a new principle in our Constitution. It means that no Department is free from the attentions and reports of this Commission. The same thing applies to the wonderful and glowing accounts of the tourist industry, which is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour at all, but is specifically the duty of the President of the Board of Trade. What the President of the Board of Trade has been doing about the Bill I do not know, but the Bill cuts into his powers right and left, in this Clause in particular. The President of the Board of Trade is there to look after the trade and industry of this country. If any tourist industry is worth developing, that is his duty. Is he to do it? Not at all. He has to sit back and wait until a Commission under the Catering Wages Act comes along and tells him what to do. This is not a fantastic suggestion. It is based upon the Minister's Second Reading speech. He clearly says—I will read the words if you wish it—that he is going to take these powers. Who is to do that? The President of the Board of Trade whose duty it is? But no, the Minister says the Commission is to do it.

Mr. Molson: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the difference between legislation and recommendation? The only power here is that the Commission which is to study the development of the catering industry may make recommendations to the Government, and it is fantastic on the Committee stage of this Bill to say that that gives the Minister powers, and to quote a Second Reading speech to prove it.

Mr. Colegate: The hon. Member has entirely missed the point. You do not, by making a report or recommendation, thereby bring in legislation. It has not, of course, the force of legislation. I am fully aware of that, but none the less I take it that the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade and the Home Office do not want a Commission under the Minister of Labour to make recommendations as to the legislation they should introduce, because the fact is that in that Second


Reading speech legislation is foreshadowed and asked for on the report of the Commission. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that if the Commissioners recommend a change in university procedure, he is going to ask for legislation? If so, he is contradicting what he said in his Second Reading speech. Therefore this paragraph is very relevant to what I am saying. This Commission, unless their powers are much more clearly defined in the Bill than hitherto, can rove over the whole field of government and make recommendations to any Department on any subject it cares to do so.

Mr. Molson: I invite the Committee to study the Amendment now before it. The point under discussion is whether this Commission set up under this Bill, when it decides to make a recommendation to the Government, shall be obliged to send that recommendation to the Minister of Labour, or whether it may consider the exact nature of the recommendation it is going to make and send it to the appropriate Minister. The question is whether it should send its recommendations to the appropriate or inappropriate Minister. It is perfectly true that my right hon. Friend in his Second Reading speech did draw attention to the many ramifications of the catering trade and to the great developments that may take place in that industry after the war, and the immense assistance the Commission may be in indicating to the Government the kind of lines upon which various changes could be made including, no doubt, legislation. But as for suggesting that in allowing the Commission to make its recommendations to the appropriate Minister this Committee is in any way prejudging undrafted Bills which may at some time be introduced to give effect to unwritten recommendations of a Commission which has not yet been set up, that is surely a fantastic line of argument to take. I was at one time in some doubt as to whether it really mattered very much whether these recommendations were necessarily sent to the Minister of Labour or might be sent direct to the Minister of Health or whoever happened to be the appropriate Minister, to give effect to its recommendations. It was when I heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) that I realised how wide might be the scope of these recommendations

and how immensely valuable it might be that these recommendations should be made to the appropriate Department. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be willing to make any concession upon this point but will insist upon the Bill going through with this ample and wide scope.

Mr. Levy: I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that paragraph (b) has to be read with the remaining sentences which follow. You get under Sub-section (2):
Where any recommendation is made by the Commission under this section to a government department, that department shall forthwith take the recommendation into consideration.
What does that mean? [An HON. MEMBER: "What it says."] All right, it means exactly what it says, but what interpretation is the Department receiving these recommendations going to put upon it? [An HON. MEMBER: "Come and ask you."] The hon. Member is paying me a compliment I do not really deserve, but perhaps I shall be able to give just as good an instruction about it, certainly as my hon. Friend opposite who engages in such frivolity.

Major Gluckstein: There is an Amendment standing in my name to leave out the particular paragraph which has just been read. I do not know whether what is now going on will preclude any discussion from taking place on it, and I should like your guidance, Major Milner, on it.

The Chairman: No, discussion of the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment will not necessarily be precluded.

Mr. Levy: This Commission according to this paragraph is apparently receiving under this Bill far wider powers than were contemplated when we accepted this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wants it to make headway, he had better deal with it under his own regime than bring these various Government Departments into all these matters, a good many of which will be quite irrelevant in the issue as to the fundamental principles of this Bill.

Major Gluckstein: This Sub-section is either meaningless or very dangerous. I dissent from the view expressed by the Minister that the assurance given earlier in the day will be covered by this particular Sub-section. If I might draw the attention of the Com-


mittee to paragraph (b) the only thing on which this Commission may make recommendations to any Government Department is:
with respect to any matter affecting the remuneration, conditions of employment, health or welfare of such workers.
How can one find within those words the undertaking which the Minister has mentioned to-day regarding re-equipment, rebuilding and so on of property, and persons who are conducting an enterprise? This Commission is prevented from doing anything more than to recommend on the basis set out in (b). If that is right, I feel that the Minister must be wrong in the view he has expressed just now, and I hope that with the assistance of the Solicitor-General he will reconsider this whole point. I was impressed by what one hon. Member said just now. He wanted to know what particular Government Department is to be invited to consider all the problems arising out of the Sub-section. The Minister sought to raise matters which in my submission do not arise under this Sub-section. I particularly want to draw attention to this point, because the powers which are being given in this Sub-section are far wider than any we have previously given in any Statute that I can discover. The Minister just now claimed that under the Trade Boards Act the joint industrial councils had powers of this kind. I have looked at the Trade Boards Act, and, under Section 10, the only recommendation which a trade board may make to a Government Department is in reference to industrial conditions. That is a much narrower field than anything set out in this Sub-section.
Without trespassing on the Amendment which I hope to move presently, I repeat that this is either extremely meaningless and useless or extremely dangerous. Of the two, I should say that it might well be meaningless; but if, as I suspect, the Minister thinks it covers a much wider field than I do, I hope that between now and the Report stage he will give serious consideration to the possibility of leaving this Commission to report to him, and to him alone. The duty of this Commission, as I understand it, is to deal on a wide basis with problems in the catering industry. After all, this is a Catering Wages Bill. The Commission has not a general roving commission to

consider and discuss everything under the sun, such as, for example, the importation of foreign labour into this country. If I may say so without being out of Order, I welcome the conversion of the Minister of Labour and some of his colleagues to the good sound theory of protection. They have always believed in free trade, but apparently they wish to exclude foreign labour, which is a good step towards the principle of protection. But, in my submission, that goes much beyond what this Commission ought to deal with. Their job is
the remuneration, conditions of employment, health or welfare
of workers in the catering industry. That is sufficient for them. The Minister tells us that there are 500,000 workers in this industry, and I should have thought that to consider the well-being of those workers would have been plenty for the Commission to do, without their embarking on other duties. I hope the Minister will see the force of what I am saying, and that he will keep in his own care such recommendations or reports as are made.

The Solicitor-General: I am very anxious that the approach which my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Major Gluckstein) have given to this problem should be considered, and that our attitude should be made clear. I think that if that is done it will be found that the purpose behind this provision is such as would commend itself to both of my hon. Friends whom I am taking as examples. As I understand, a great deal of the activity pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland, which he has mentioned to-day, is designed to secure the function of government should be tempered as far as possible to the governed in every aspect of their daily life. I think that represents his point of view as fairly as he would represent it himself. What is suggested here is that, instead of direct Ministerial action by my right hon. Friend or his successors, you should have a Commission, which would provide knowledge, experience, continuity and freedom from pressure in the consideration of the problems of the industry.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: That is outside the scope of the Bill, I would say.

The Solicitor-General: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by that interruption, but it is quite clear that the framework of the Bill is that the Commission should be established to perform the task which we have been dealing with to-day and to provide the qualities which I ventured to enumerate a moment ago. That is the position set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland. Now I come to the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham added to that. He says that Subsection (b)—this, I understand, is one limb of his argument—is restrictive, that the matters mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot be considered. I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider the words of Subsection (b). They include not only remuneration, but
conditions of employment, health or welfare of such workers.
I cannot understand any interpretation of these words which would not allow anybody to whom they are directed to inquire into the problems which have been adumbrated to-day.

Major Gluckstein: How could they cover things like equipment and re-building?

The Solicitor-General: That is a difficulty which I cannot understand. If a body has to consider conditions of employment and health and welfare, it is past my comprehension how it could be prevented from considering the physical structure in which the industry is carried on.

Major Gluckstein: I am being misinterpreted. This is before anybody is employed at all. The Minister told us that when buildings which are in ruins were being reconstructed he was going to take certain steps, and that when equipment was lacking he was going to make provision. That is long before anybody is employed. It relates to physical things like houses in the neighbourhood. It has nothing to do with the worker.

The Solicitor-General: I am not trying to be stupid, but I have the greatest difficulty in following what is bothering my hon. and gallant Friend. As I appreciate the point which was so eloquently put they had buildings which had been diverted to the catering industry, and which had suffered through war damage or through some other conditions of the

war. Why the Commission should not be entitled, when asked to consider conditions of employment and health and welfare of the industry, to look into that problem, I cannot conceive. I am sure that, as a matter of interpretation of words, spirit or intentment of legislation, it is covered by the Bill. The point which I sought to make was a combination of these two points. We have the point on which I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Elland, that here we have machinery which in my submission provides these qualities—I ask pardon for referring to them again, because I attach so much importance to them—of knowledge, experience, freedom from pressure and continuity of work. All these qualities the Commission have. They will be applied to these problems.
The next point is, what are they to do? Are they, having obtained their knowledge by inquiry, to come to the Minister, or are they to make their recommendations direct to the person concerned. Why should they go through the post-box of the Minister? Again—and I do not apologise for turning my hon. Friend's argument—either it means nothing and the Minister is just a post-box or else—and I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Elland to know this—it is just taking away from the position of the Commission and making them send it back to the Minister and increasing Ministerial control. We suggest that the Commission, having been put into this position, should be entitled, when they have examined the matter, to make recommendations in the quarter where they will be of the most use.

Major Petherick: If the methods suggested by us were adopted the Solicitor-General said it would increase Ministerial control. I agree it would, by the Minister of Labour, but surely it would work exactly the same if the recommendation was sent to the Home Office. The Ministerial control would be exercised by the Home Secretary.

The Solicitor-General: The point which I have been seeking to put before the Committee is that either the passing through the Minister of Labour means nothing at all, in which case there is no use in having that Minister, or else you are going to bring in the Minister of Labour, for a reason which is not apparent to him, in every consideration


which concerns the Home Office or the Board of Trade or anyone else. I cannot understand why my hon. Friends, speaking from the angle they do, should desire that that should take place. Surely, if you are going to establish a body and trust it and give it responsible work, its recommendations should be sent to the quarter with whom those recommendations are concerned. That does not mean that the Ministry must accept them. It must consider them. I suggest to hon. Friends who, I know, have given consideration to this—and especially would I recommend it to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin Division (Mr. Colegate), who has considered this seriously—that they should have in mind what has been recommended by every Committee and Commission which has considered the questions of government. My Noble Friend opposite will remember the Haldane Commission at the time of the last war, and ever since it has been recommended that you should have bodies who would conduct research and inquiry and transmit the results to the Government Departments. That has been the fundamental principle, and it is the only principle over which we are struggling.

Sir D. Hacking: I think we are getting very confused in regard to the matter. As I understand the learned Solicitor-General, he says that the buildings, the restoration, repair and re-equipment of undertakings, could be considered by this Commission. That point has been disputed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Major Gluckstein). The Solicitor-General has made it clear that they have power to consider these questions and to submit them to any Government Department. I understood the Minister of Labour, when discussing the last Amendment, refused to give power to the Commission to deal with this question of restoration and repair. I think that was what he said. He refused to accept the Amendment and consequently, I thought, refused to give power to the Commission to deal with the question of restoration and repair. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will put matters right. I hope there is going to be no dispute between the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Labour on this very important point. I ask the Minister of Labour to clear up the question of whether or not restoration and repair of buildings is to be placed in the hands of the Commission to make any

recommendation they may care to do, or, if it is not, perhaps the Minister will make the matter clear.

Mr. Bevin: If it will facilitate a decision on this matter, I will try and make the point clear. I made it clear that I did not want to characterise the duties of the Commission or to give them the power to deal with this matter. Power to deal with it means power to take action. I made it clear that that must be a Governmental responsibility. These were the words I used. I said that in order to rehabilitate the industry, which, I would remind hon. Members, was an industry before the enemy blitzed it and has therefore been incapacitated by purely artificial conditions, I would cause inquiries to be made by the Commission. I would direct them to inquire under the powers already given me as far as the Clause has gone already, and to focus the various points and report to the Government Departments concerned. That is what I said, and that is what I propose to stand to in this Bill.
Now I am asked, "What has this to do with wages?" Exactly the same as it has to do with wages under the concentration of industries scheme. Where a factory has been closed down the industry will come to the Board of Trade or to somebody else to ask for it to be restored. I want to make myself clear. Over the whole range of industry, at the end of the war, hon. Members must appreciate, every industrial council, every joint consultative body, every trade board, will ask respective Government Departments to do this, that or the other thing in order to get industry back on to a peace footing. No one will deny that. That is what they will do and must do. I am merely saying that the Commission will focus and investigate these things. What is the good of having remuneration if you have not created the physical conditions in which the remuneration can be earned? That is the whole basis of the thing. Therefore, I am not asking for a roving commission. I would make it clear to the hon. and gallant Member opposite that I intend to include the question of competition of alien labour—I do make that clear—where it has affected the remuneration of the British waiter?

Major Gluckstein: Am I to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being a protectionist?

Mr. Bevin: The question of what my political views may be, whether protectionist or free trade, does not arise at all. If I want to indulge in an economic discussion with the hon. and gallant Member, we will do that at another time somewhere else. The point is that all these things affect the opportunity to earn the remuneration, and the equipment and tools with which to earn it have just as much effect in the rehabilitation of hotels that have been blitzed as that the people in industry shall start peace-time works. They are entitled to go back to the Department in order to get it done.

Mr. Levy: Am I to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman says that when the post-war period comes anybody who has had a factory and has gone away has to go to some Government Department for permission to start again?

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Bevin indicated dissent.

Mr. Levy: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that, will he make it clear that permission will not have to be asked by all these people before they are permitted to open?

Amendment negatived.

Sir E. Cadogan: I beg to more, in page 2, line 10, to leave out paragraph (c).
I am anxious not to disturb the amicable relations which the Minister seems to have established between himself and his critics and I hope to convince him that this Amendment, devastating though it may look on paper, is not factious and is not a question of principle but of machinery. As regards the machinery which will enable inquiries to be instituted into matters other than those which are concerned with wages and conditions of service in the catering trade, I am quite prepared to accept the Commission as a body which inquires into wages and conditions, but I feel convinced that this is not the proper body to deal with the future development of the industry. There is little doubt that as soon as the war is ended there will be, as the Minister has said, a very considerable development of tourist and holiday traffic. There may well be improved conditions of service for staffs but there is no doubt that accommodation will be limited. Hotels and boarding houses have been blitzed, others have been requisitioned and, on the whole, will probably require repair. Unless there

is planning in advance, a great deal of discontent will be engendered in the public mind.
I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee how the Commission, which is to be set up to deal with wages and conditions of service, can possibly deal with development. Surely a Commission of altogether different personnel is needed for that purpose. I should have thought that that would have come within the purview of the Board of Trade. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to trespass beyond his own domain; I should have thought that the Ministry of Labour had enough to do as it is. As I have said, I trust the Minister will not think I am putting up any factious opposition to his Bill; I would merely like him to explain how it is possible for this Commission to deal with matters other than those which come within the scope of this Bill. I would be prepared to withdraw this Amendment if he would give an assurance that this Sub-section does not preclude the possiblity of other Ministries dealing with the development of the industry after the war.

Major Petherick: On a point of Order. Might we have, Mr. Williams, a discussion on this Amendment together with those immediately preceding and following it, because they all embody, I think, the same principle although the form of words and the implications are somewhat different?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): On this Amendment I think we can have a moderately wide discussion, without necessarily dealing with the next Amendment.

Mr. McCorquodale: I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir E. Cadogan) has not understood what his Amendment really does or what is the object of paragraph (c). If he will turn to paragraph (a) he will see that, already, the Minister has been given powers and that the Commission shall make such inquiries as may be directed by the Minister. Paragraph (c) gives them power, having made the inquiries which the Minister asked them to make, to report to the Minister the result of those inquiries. It would not be much use the Minister being given power to ask the Commission to make inquiries, if the Commission had no power to report the result


of those inquiries. With regard to the second part of paragraph (c) there is an Amendment later with regard to an annual report and we can deal with that point when it arises.

Sir E. Cadogan: But my hon. Friend has not dealt with my objection. How is it possible for this Commission which is to deal with wages and conditions in the industry, to deal with questions connected with the development of the industry after the war?

Mr. McCorquodale: I was dealing with my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. We have already, under paragraph (a) given the Commission power to make such inquiries as they may be directed by the Minister to make into these specific matters, and this Paragraph gives them the power to report to the Minister on such matters as he has directed them to look into, by paragraph (a), which is the governing paragraph. It is no use having the Clause at all unless the Commission has power to report to the Minister. I cannot see what my hon. and gallant Friend means.

Major Petherick: I think I understand the difficulty. As I understand it, paragraph (c) refers to Paragraph (a) If my hon. Friend would direct his attention to my Amendment on the Paper substituting a new paragraph (c), he might get out of the difficulty. The words which I propose make it clear that there is no roving commission, in addition to the powers given under paragraphs (a) and (b). My Amendment merely says that the Commission shall report to the Minister on any matter on which they have been directed to inquire under paragraphs (a) and (b).

Sir Joseph Lamb: I understand that what my hon. and gallant Friend, the Mover of the Amendment, said arose out of something said by the Minister and not out of what was in the Bill. The Minister referred to certain things that he might direct. As I read the Bill, paragraph (c) is governed by paragraph (a), and under the Bill the Minister can only make recommendations after inquiry into the subjects covered by the Clause, that is, the remuneration, conditions of employment, health or welfare of such workers. The rehabilitation of the industry would not come into it. If that is so, that is the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir E. Cadogan: If I am given that assurance I will withdraw the Amendment.

Major Gluckstein: I feel a certain disquiet after what passed on paragraph (b). May I ask the Committee to look at paragraph (b)?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, we cannot go back to paragraph (b) now.

Major Gluckstein: The words are exactly the same as in paragraph (a).

The Deputy-Chairman: That is all the more reason for not referring to them.

Major Gluckstein: Under paragraph (c) the Minister is entitled to call for a report on any matter into which he has directed the Commission to inquire. If we look at paragraph (a) to see on what subjects they make make a report——

The Deputy-Chairman: That is what we must not do. We have done it once.

Major Gluckstein: It becomes meaningless to discuss the deletion of this paragraph unless we look at what precedes it. After all, there must be a report to the Minister on any matter that he has directed them to inquire into.

The Deputy-Chairman: On this paragraph it is only a matter of whether there should be a report or not. It has nothing to do with the other matters that we have already dealt with.

Major Gluckstein: It is on any matter that he has directed them to inquire into. If he directed them to inquire into something not within their terms of reference, the Commission would be entitled to say, "We cannot inquire into that."

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that now.

Major Gluckstein: As I understand what has been stated, when the Minister invites this Commission to submit a report to him, it must be on such matters as he has directed them to inquire into. I submit that it is open to me, in discussing whether this paragraph should stand or not, to inquire what it is that may be inquired into. If I am wrong on that, I must make my submission on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If one was assured that paragraph (c) related only to the matters in paragraph


(a), one would not feel the same fear, but having regard to what the Solicitor-General said when interpreting paragraph (b), I feel a certain fear that the scope of inquiry will be enormously widened, and we ought to make certain that the Commission's report should be directed solely to the matters within its power and not to some other matters, which the Solicitor-General has told us, on the assurance of the Minister, will come within the purview of his interpretation. Rehabilitation is one of those matters. That goes far beyond anything that the Commission has to consider. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will reassure us.

Sir E. Cadogan: The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think it rather extraordinary that I should have misunderstood the paragraph, but others have been labouring under the same experience as myself. If I can have an assurance that these words refer only to the matters covered by paragraph (a) I will withdraw the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance at once. There is no doubt at all that the words
shall report to the Minister on any matter which he has directed them to inquire into
relate back to paragraph (a). I see no room for two views upon that. I have given my view of the interpretation of the words we have already discussed and I do not depart from the interpretation I have given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "from time to time as he may direct," and to insert "annually."
This Amendment should be taken in conjunction with the Amendment in line 17, at the end, to insert:
and the Minister shall as soon as may be lay every such general report before Parliament.
Some of my hon. Friends put down an Amendment that an annual report of this Commission should be laid before Parliament. My right hon. Friend thought that that was a good idea. It will keep the House in touch with what the Commission is doing in the same way as the House is kept in touch by an annual

report with what His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Taxes is doing.

Mr. Graham White: I am glad that the Minister has thought that this is a good idea. It appeared to some of my hon. Friends that it would be more in accordance with well-established democratic practice that this Commission, which has considerable powers, should report annually and that the House should, if it thought fit, have an opportunity of expressing its views upon the Commission's recommendations. It would be an unfortunate thing and lead to some confusion, if those concerned in the recommendations thought that there was going on behind the scenes, something they were not in a position to know about. The principle in all these negotiations should be that all the cards are on the table and placed face upwards.

Mr. Craik Henderson: The Amendment is a distinct improvement, but what does "annual" mean? Does it mean within 12 months of the setting-up of the Commission or within a calendar year?

Mr. McCorquodale: It means a report every year.

Major Gluckstein: Am I right in assuming that when this report is made, discussion of it can be raised in the House on the Minister's salary or some appropriate Vote?

Mr. McCorquodale: There is a later Amendment that the Minister shall lay it before Parliament so that it can be discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Gluckstein: I beg to move in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Commission shall not make any inquiries or recommendations or general reports under the foregoing provisions of this subsection affecting the remuneration or conditions of employment of all or any of the workers in relation to whom a wages board operates under the provisions of this Act.
This Amendment is self-explanatory, but I would say in support of it, that it does seem right that, once the Commission has made a recommendation to the Minister that a wages board should be set up, and when that board is functioning in relation to some of the workers in the industry, there should not be duplication and


that reports by both the Commission and the board should not be sent to the Minister. They might possibly be conflicting reports and might put the Minister in serious difficulty. I am suggesting that when the Commission has once decided that the wages board procedure shall be applied and a particular section has been put under a wages board, the Commission should be finished with that part of the industry. After that the wages board goes through all its routine procedure in making its report, the workers are completely protected by that procedure, and it ought not to be possible for further interference by the Commission to take place. I am sure the Minister would not want duplication and possibly conflicting reports from the wages board and the Commission and that he would prefer to deal with one body only.

Mr. Bevin: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no intention on the part of the Ministry of Labour to indulge in any duplication, but I would beg him not to handicap the Commission in doing work which, if the Minister was doing it, he could do now, that is, assuming he was operating under a trade board. Suppose a wages board were set up and it was found by experience that there was overlapping. To take a typical illustration, there is a laundry trade board, and it might well be that when a section of the wages board began functioning it would be found preferable for the laundries attached to hotels to be transferred from the laundry trade board to the wages board for purposes of interchangeability and general benetfit of the staff and everybody else. If I accept the Amendment, I cannot do anything, for it will certainly hamstring the Bill for all time. If my hon. and gallant Friend feels between now and the Report stage that I could find some words which would relieve his fears on the question of two bodies operating at one time on the same thing, I will try and see whether it can be done. We have no intention of having two bodies operating in one sphere, but we do not want to destroy the flexibility which enables us to make transfers. We must allow the Commission to be able to wipe out a wages board if something else takes its place. I am anxious to be able to take the advice of the Commission on this kind of thing and not to get into an inflexible position in which I could do nothing and would not

be able to do the very thing that a section of the trade is asking me to do.

Major Gluckstein: I am much obliged to the Minister for his statement. We do not want to have duplication or conflict between two bodies set up by the Minister. The wages board would be in a better position to effect transfers from one to the other better than the Commission, which could not be seized of all the matters of daily routine, such as would come before the wages board. I apprehend that the Commission, having once made up its mind that a wages board has to be set up, will push that section of the industry out of its mind, and it would be necessary to bring forward all sorts of further evidence if further action were required. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, but if he will do what I have suggested, by strengthening the wages board and using some sort of machinery such as I have indicated, leaving this particular question out of the purview of the Commission, I shall be very pleased.

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that I cannot commit myself any further than I have done already.

Major Gluckstein: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 17, at the end, insert,
and the Minister shall as soon as may be lay every such general report before Parliament."—[Mr. McCorquodale.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Major Gluckstein: Did you, Mr. Williams, call my Amendment to line 18 of Clause 2 to leave out Subsection (2)?

The Deputy-Chairman: No. We have passed Clause 2, and we have now come to Clause 3.

Sir D. Hacking: I understood that it was the intention of the Chair to call the Amendment to line 18 of Clause 2.

The Deputy-Chairman: The question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" has already been put and agreed to. It was not my intention to call that Amendment.

Sir D. Hacking: May I ask, with due respect, whether you did call that Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: No. The last Amendment I called was the Minister's. We must now go on to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment on Clause 3.

Major Gluckstein: On a point of Order. May I point out that I was standing up? It may not have been noticed, but I was standing up. It is bad luck.

The Deputy-Chairman: Bad luck is not a point of Order.

CLAUSE 3.—(Machinery for wage regulation by agreement.)

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "any" to insert "class or classes of."
I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. This is the first of a series of Amendments designed to ensure that classes of workers are dealt with and not the individual workers of individual undertakings within any particular class. I hope the Minister will realise what I mean by classes. The Commission is dividing up the industry into certain classes, and, as the Bill is drafted, there is a little doubt whether certain individual establishments might be treated differently, thus leading to unfair competition within any one particular class. For example, if it were decided that hotels in one particular classification should be included and all the workers in that group of hotels should be included, it would be unfair, I submit, if waiters in one hotel on one side of a road found themselves treated differently from the waiters employed in a similar hotel on the other side of the road. It is a very simple Amendment, and I hope it will be accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that we cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend has considered the points I have to advance he will agree with me that it is one which would not operate and would be impractical in its application. The suggestion to interpose the word "class" is made with regard to a number of Clauses but we have to consider the Clause at present before the Committee. In this Clause we are considering whether there is existing machinery adequate for regulating the remuneration or conditions of any

worker. Assuming that there is machinery and that it is adequate, the Amendment wishes to provide that those workers must constitute a class. The Clause is dealing with the position where there is a group or groups of organised workers already—that is the position which the Clause postulates—and the Commission may think that another group or other groups should be joined with them. When we come to consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion that they are to be restricted in that work unless a class is covered, the question arises, "What is a class?" If organised workers are a class there is no point in the Amendment, because we are dealing in the Clause with workers who are organised already. Is it to be the amount of work they do, that constitutes a class? For example, would regular workers as opposed to casual workers constitute a class? Is it time that is to govern it? For example, do day workers or night workers constitute a class? Is it the age that is to govern it? Is it to be a condition as to residence, a question of persons living in?
I have endeavoured to consider this point as applicable to these conditions and I cannot find that the word "class" gives any guidance or lays down any real principle which will be helpful in carrying out the procedure of the Bill. I think it is for the Commission to consider whether the groups of workers whom they have in mind do fulfil the conditions which are laid down by Clause 1. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has considered this point. I do not know whether he has in mind the case where the word "class" was inserted in a rating Bill which we passed a short time ago. The word was used with regard to property—a "class" of hereditaments. It was considered by the court and, in much better language than I have been able to use to this Committee, the court took exactly the same point of view that "class" does not provide any guidance and leaves the matter in exactly the state of uncertainty which we wish to avoid.
I, therefore, point out, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give this consideration due weight, that if he introduces the word "class" in this and the other cases, he is making that a condition precedent of the action taking place, and making the matter challengeable in the courts, unless a class is embraced by the action which takes place. I do not know


whether my right hon. Friend had that point in mind. If he had, on that assumption, I can hardly think of any word which would be more unhappy or would be a more fruitful mother of useless litigation than the word "class" inserted in this regard. Let us take workers; let us lay down the problem; let us pick a Commission and then the wages board, with the greatest possible care and skill; and then let the governing consideration be whether the body which we pick considers that the group of workers shall receive the treatment laid down.

Sir D. Hacking: Does that mean that there will be no differentiation between classes of workers in any particular type of undertaking? That is what I want to avoid. It is the intention of my Amendment to avoid discrimination or difference in treatment between workers engaged in any one particular class of industry or undertaking.

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that "discrimination" is a very happy way of describing it. It may be that, within a body of workers who are doing the same work, different considerations apply, in different geographical areas, for example. That may easily happen. In the present case, if my right hon. Friend has any particular point in mind, he might when we go through the Clauses, if he is allowed to do so, draw attention to them. Here, where we shall have machinery, I cannot appreciate why one should wish to introduce, in addition to that governing factor, the other factor of a certain class of worker.

Sir John Mellor: I cannot see that these words are so very dangerous. There must be some sort of classification. If you are to classify, there must be something in the different classes, on the basis of which they are classified. There must be some criterion. All we want is to make sure that all those who are classified in a certain class shall be treated in the same way.

Sir Harold Webbe: We all appreciate the Minister's difficulty. It may be that the word "class" has, by its past associations, become unsuitable for use in connection with this matter, but the Solicitor-General has not yet dealt with what I conceive to be the trouble which my right hon. Friend seeks to remove by his Amendment. The

Solicitor-General has spoken repeatedly during his speech of groups of workers. If the word "group" is less objectionable than "class" I submit that a similar Amendment with the word "group" might meet the objections. The Clause provides that the Commission is to determine whether there exists adequate machinery for regulating the remuneration or conditions of service of workers. I understand that what it is desired to secure is that the Commission shall be satisfied as to the adequacy or otherwise of the organised machinery for dealing with wages and conditions of groups of workers, performing like services in like surroundings, and that it shall not be competent for the Commission to have regard to machinery which may well exist in large establishments, and which may well be satisfactory there, but are to concern themselves with machinery to deal with groups of workers engaged in similar occupations in similar surroundings. If the Amendment in that form will not meet that point, will the Solicitor-General consider whether it is not possible to secure in this Clause or a subsequent Clause that workers shall not be dealt with differently in one establishment from those in another establishment performing similar work?

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment in this form, because if you bring in the word "class" the result must be a great deal of litigation and hindrance of the work which is the object of this Clause. "Group" might be less bad than "class," but it seems better to follow the practice which I understand is followed under the Road Haulage Wages Act, where the Central Board is empowered to deal with the wages of any organised worker. I have never heard any suggestion of "class" or "group" coming in under that Act. I wish to see this Measure improved, but I am certain that if you put in the proposed word, the question "What is class?" will arise time after time, and harm will be done instead of good. I remember, a little earlier in one Debate, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a Government statement as being either meaningless or dangerous. If "class" means organised workers, it is entirely meaningless, but if it means that "class" is to be occupation or a like idea, it will be dangerous to the good working of the


Bill. I very much hope that the Government will stand by their view and that my right hon. Friend will keep his thunder for something which may be rather more definite and useful.

Sir D. Hacking: I am inclined to take the advice of my hon. and gallant Friend and keep my thunder for a later stage. I do not press this Amendment, though I am not completely satisfied with what the Solicitor-General said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "applies," to insert:
and if in their opinion the remuneration and conditions of employment of those workers are unsatisfactory, and accordingly require further regulation.
I think this is an Amendment on which one's thunder ought to be used. We attach a good deal of importance to this Amendment. Under the Clause as it is at present drafted, I understand that, whatever the wages and conditions are, however satisfactory they may be, nevertheless if the machinery is capable of improvement, then a report may be sent to the Minister stating how the machinery can be improved for the regulating of wages and conditions. We submit that the criterion for interference or for non-interference with any section of this industry by the Commission should not be the adequacy of the machinery in that particular section of the undertaking or in a particular section of the industry, but whether or not the wages and conditions are satisfactory. That ought to be the criterion. That is what we ought to consider and that is what I believe the intention of the Bill to be. What I want to know is the real object of the Minister. Does he want to get an organisation he likes, or does he want to get good conditions irrespective of the type of organisation which exists? That is the question I should like to ask him at once. Is it the organisation in which he is interested—the organisation he would like to see—or is he most concerned with the conditions and wages in the industry? If he desires to obtain good wages and good conditions then, personally, I see no reason at all why he should not accept my Amendment.

Major Petherick: Some of us who are interested in this Bill have considered this

matter for quite a long time. As my right hon. Friend said, I believe the intention of the Government is right—that is to say, they have inserted words designed to bring it about that if the Commission are entirely satisfied that existing machinery is adequate or can by agreement be made so, the Commission will report to the Minister, and then, we understand, no further action would be taken. What my right hon. Friend and many others of us who were rather disturbed by the implication of some of the words of this Bill, are anxious to secure is that regulation from above will not be imposed for the sake of regulation, and that because some people like regulation and dragooning they will not be given an opportunity to have a free hand. If this form of words will make it clear that the intention of the Government is that no regulation will be imposed, when it is not necessary, I think that the words could with advantage be inserted.
We are very anxious to make quite sure that no unnecessary regulation is carried out where there is machinery already in certain sections of the catering industry which has worked satisfactorily and is carried out by employers and employed working together amicably. We do not want interference, whether by a Commission or subsequently by a wages board. The employers and employed in any section of any industry concerned, are much more likely to have sound machinery and come to a reasonable conclusion than gentlemen who are imposed from above on the choice of any Minister. They are much more likely to be able to arrange their affairs amicably. Therefore we say that the Government should leave good alone. That is what we are asking in this Amendment. I think it will help to make the intention absolutely clear if these words are accepted and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: I think the Mover and supporter of this Amendment do not realise what they are doing. In the Bill, as it stands, the only thing the Commission inquires into is whether there is collective machinery and whether that machinery is functioning properly. If it is, they do not inquire into the remuneration fixed by the machinery. That is not a part of the Commission's business. All they are asked to do is to see whether


those concerned are covered by a collective agreement, and whether that agreement is operative and properly enforced. If it is, that ends the matter. The promoters of this Amendment are asking the Commission not only to inquire into that question but also to examine and report on whether what the collective machinery did before they inquired into it, was right. Are hon. Members not doing the very thing they do not want to do? I imagine the Bill is right as it is. It leaves the question to be inquired into, whether there is a collective agreement that is functioning. The Commission do not ask what it is. If they are satisfied that a body of workers is covered by collective machinery; there is no ground, if that is adequate, to order a wages board. But I do not want the Commission to sit as a sort of a super-arbitrator to say that what a body did in fixing wages ought to be revised. That is the last thing I would like the Commission to do. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment might be withdrawn.

Sir H. Webbe: I am afraid that the Minister's reply does not deal with the whole point. This provision empowers the Commission, it is true, to consider whether wage machinery in fact exists, and I am sure we all accept the Minister's argument that if they find that machinery exists, they leave it alone and everyone is satisfied. But the Bill goes further and lays upon the Commission the duty of examining that machinery, and possibly suggesting alterations and extensions to it. I submit that it is exactly on that point, that it is relevant that the Commission should know whether, in fact, inadequate as the machinery may seem to them, it has been effective in securing proper conditions for the workers. At a later stage, we shall be considering the conditions in which the Commission is to recommend the drastic step of the creation of a wages board, but this Clause does provide that the Commission shall make suggestions as to the modification, or in their view, the improvement, of the machinery if they consider it is not as good as it might be. I submit that if the machinery is, in fact, working, and is, in fact, securing a proper standard of wages and conditions for the workers, that machinery is prima facie satisfactory. There should be no call whatever on the Commission to recommend any change if the conditions are satisfactory.

Mr. Bevin: Exactly the same principle applies as in Clause 2. It is a question of the machinery, and of whether the machinery is adequate. A moment ago my hon. and learned Friend was being asked to make this clear in respect to classes and groups. Suppose that you have a collective agreement, but the number covered is limited. The question arises of whether it is adequate. Instead of clumping down a wages board, you make suggestions as to how the thing can be made right. It is purely a question of machinery, not of wages.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I should like the Minister to make a little more clear the purposes of the machinery. A little while ago I asked to what extent trade union machinery already existed in the industry. His reply confirmed an impression in the minds of many of us who have nothing to do with the industry, that there is no demand for collective machinery from either side in the industry. Is it the case that this Commission, if it finds that there is no collective machinery, in a particular part of the industry, is bound to recommend that there shall be collective machinery, although it may find that collective machinery is not suited to that part of the industry?

Sir Waldron Smithers: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." I do so for this reason——

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not accept that Motion.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. With great respect——

The Deputy-Chairman: There cannot be a point of Order until the next Amendment has been moved.

Major Gluckstein: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from "question" to the end of the Clause.
I had better read the whole of this Sub-section:
Where the Commission in any such report as aforesaid suggest methods for improving any machinery as aforesaid, the Minister shall take such steps as appear to him to be expedient and practicable to secure the improvements in question"—

Sir W. Smithers: As the Amendment has been moved, I now desire to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," I do so for this reason——

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not call the Motion.

Major Gluckstein: It goes on—
and, if the improvements are not thereby secured, he may, if he thinks fit, refer the report back to the Commission and the Commission shall thereupon reconsider it having regard to any observations made by the Minister and shall make a further report to him.
I suggest leaving out the words:
and, if the improvements are not thereby secured, he may, if he thinks fit, refer the report back to the Commission and the Commission shall thereupon reconsider it having regard to any observations made by the Minister and shall make a further report to him.
Once the Commission has carefully considered the whole of the machinery mentioned in Clause 3, and has come to the conclusion that there are certain ways in which it can be improved, those ways are to be considered by the Minister, who has to take such steps as appear to him to be expedient and practicable to secure the improvement. If the Minister, by reason of half-heartedness, or because he does not understand what the Commission have asked him to do, or because he does not agree with the Commission, or for some other reason, does not want to carry out the recommendations, he can send the report back to the Commission, and they have to reconsider it and make a further report. But there must be some finality. One cannot go on indefinitely referring things back from the Minister to the Commission, and from the Commission to the Minister. If it is an experienced Commission—although its experience is likely to be learned at the expense of the industry—and it sets out all the improvements which ought to be made, surely one cannot have the Minister sending it back and asking for further reports. The Commission is to be composed of responsible and allegedly independent people. They will have seen the witnesses, heard the evidence and considered the matter, I hope properly, and if they have come to a conclusion, it is improper, I suggest, in a conflict between the Minister and the Commission, for him to arrogate to himself the right to reconsider the recommendations made to him by his own Commission.

Commander Bower: I beg to support the Amendment. This is one of the Amendments with which the Committee finds itself in a certain difficulty, on account of the drafting of the Bill. A good deal hangs upon the composition of the Commission, which we shall not discuss until we get to the First Schedule. But we know enough of the proposed character of this Commission to see that they will be a more or less responsible body, and I cannot see the faintest justification for starting an eternal game of battledore and shuttlecock, tossing the report from the Commission to the Minister and from the Minister back to the Commission. It looks very much as if the Minister wants to retain in his own hands powers which if they have to belong to anybody, should belong to the Commission. I hope the Minister will give us some explanation of his desire for references back of this kind. It seems to us quite unreasonable and unnecessary, and it will cause waste of time and great complication.

Mr. Bevin: I want to make my position quite clear. I have put this in the Bill deliberately, and with a view to securing the proper working of the Act. The Commission reports, say, that certain collective machinery exists, but that it can be improved and made effective. The Minister then calls conferences of the parties, or seeks in some other way to make it effective. We had a good deal of experience at the end of the last war, when many joint industrial councils were set up, only to collapse at the critical moment. They collapsed not through the good employer breaking away, but through the bad employer undermining and undercutting the whole edifice. Let us assume that the Minister seeks to get improvement and to get effective collective machinery, in perfect good will, as we tried to do with the industrial councils, and that because of obduracy or jealousy on the part of some of the people concerned, or for one of a variety of reasons, it breaks down. Frankly, I have put this into the Bill because the Minister, having failed to get that section of the industry to effect the improvements and to maintain them, as recommended by the Commission, must be able to send the matter back to the Commission in the light of that failure. The great thing in this business is to keep continuity. When you have built the industrial edifice, do not let


anybody break it down. This Clause is put in deliberately with that intention, and the Committee would do well to accept the safeguard. It may be that this safeguard in the Bill need never have to become operative, but it will be of tremendous moral value in preventing the bad employer from wrecking the efforts of the leading employers.

Major Gluckstein: Does that mean at any time after the Minister has taken steps? Supposing these steps are carried out and improvements are made and things are going along quite well, and then, months or years afterwards, they break down, is it the intention of the Minister that it should then be referred back to the Commission? I could understand wanting to do that after a short period of time, but if it is to be perpetually hanging over, then surely this is a very wide power.

Mr. Bevin: I want to make it clear, and I ask for the support of the Committee with their eyes open for what I am doing in this case. It is at any time, if the machinery breaks down, otherwise you would be in the position that people would neither have the protection of the industrial council nor the protection of the wages board and nobody could do anything, and that is a position in which I am not prepared to leave the industry.

Major Gluckstein: I do not want to produce that situation at all, and if that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman I do not want to do this, and in these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, in page 2, line 46, at the end, to add:
(3) Before making any report to the Minister under this section the Commission, if they think it desirable, may hold a formal inquiry with respect to the subject upon which the report is to be made, or direct such an inquiry to be held and a report to be made to them thereon by a competent and impartial person not in the employment of any Government department.
This is a simple and desirable Amendment. As the Bill is at present drafted, the Commission might make a recommendation to the Minister to interfere with existing voluntary machinery for regulating wages and conditions without having carried out any proper inquiry.

Our request is a very modest one. We do not ask for any compulsory inquiry. We leave it very largely in the hands of the Commission themselves. We do not ask that there should be compulsion placed upon the shoulders of the members of the Commission, although frankly, until we know the constitution of the Commission, we doubt very much whether they should be trusted with a great deal of freedom. We ask that only if the Commission think it desirable to hold such an inquiry shall an inquiry in fact be held. As the Bill is drafted, the Commission do not even have to give notice with regard to any interference with the existing machinery, and no section of the trade, neither the employers nor the workers, need be consulted. We suggest that if the Commission think fit, an inquiry may be held before the proposed interference is suggested to the Minister. It is purely permissive. It is suggested that the Commission might have to institute an inquiry, and I do not think it is clear at present that the Commission have that power. It is suggested that they might have power to institute an inquiry or possibly suggest what might be a very revolutionary change in some of the existing voluntary machinery. If the Minister assures me that they have the power to institute an inquiry, it will go a very long way towards meeting the situation. It is desirable that the words should be put in more definite form that the Commission can institute an inquiry if in fact they deem it wise to do so.

Mr. Bevin: When this was drafted I naturally assumed that the Commission, if they were to determine whether there was collective machinery in existence, would by the very nature of things have to consider the constitution and the purpose of the machinery and have to know whether it worked or not. I do not at this stage see any need to refer to investigations or inquiries. It is a question of whether it is the fact. They cannot ascertain whether it is the fact unless they have the facts before them. I think that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is really redundant. With the wide experience that the right hon. Gentleman has had of so many Government Departments, he knows very well you would not for a moment proceed to determine that machinery existed without looking at the machine or asking for the machinery to be


brought so as to have a look at it. I do not want to put redundant things in the Bill. It is obvious what has to be done. No Minister would come to the House and say that he or a Commission had decided to report that machinery existed if no investigation by any Commission had ever been made.

Major Petherick: You lay down certain powers by means of Act of Parliament, but there is not a word in this part of the Bill to say that the Commission may in fact hold an inquiry at all. The intention might be that they should have an inquiry, and common sense dictates that they must, but, unfortunately, the Bill as it stands does not say so. The only thing which makes me doubt the propriety and use of this Amendment is whether the position is not already covered in Clause 2 (1, a) by which
The Commission shall make such inquiries as they think fit…into conditions of employment.
I am inclined to think that it probably does, but in supporting the Amendment, I am anxious to find out whether in fact that point is covered. If I receive an assurance from the learned Solicitor-General that that is so, then I shall feel very different about it.

Commander Bower: I would like to ask one point which I hope the Solicitor-General can elucidate. It seems that as the Bill now stands it may cause serious interference with the existing forms of wages regulations. I believe that some such machinery exists in the industrial canteen section at the present moment. It seems to me that we are not safeguarded in the Clause as it now stands against some kind of interference by the Minister on the recommendation of the Commission, and also that the industry concerned might not have warning of what is intended. Surely the procedure outlined in the Amendment would obviate any difficulty of that sort. As has been pointed out, Acts of Parliament are apt to be interpreted, after a lapse of time, in a different way from the interpretation put upon them by those who passed them, and we ought to have a safeguard against such sort of thing. I cannot see that this Amendment is in the least unreasonable or would in any way damage the Minister's control of the industry if it were passed.

The Solicitor-General: As I understood the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick), I quite agree with his view. The scheme of the Bill is that the Commission shall make inquiries, and where they find industrial machinery they shall report in this way. It seems quite clear that the first step they must take is to make such inquiries as they think fit, and that covers the method of making the inquiry. I appreciate what is in the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower), but I do not think that we need indicate, or should suggest, to the Commission this procedure of a formal inquiry. The whole purpose of the structure which has been chosen for the Bill is that the Commissioners should have knowledge, experience and continuity of the work, as I have insisted previously. I do not know if my hon. and gallant Friend has had great experience of these formal inquiries, but although in many cases they do most useful work, a great deal of time is spent in preparing for them, and I should think that the kind of situation which was limited to the question of the efficacy of industrial machinery is met by the suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth referred to, namely, that it is governed by the initial procedure, which states that the Committee shall make such inquiries as they think fit.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. I have twice tried to bring this discussion to a conclusion. May I ask the Government how long they propose to sit to-day, as it is a matter of some importance to me and many others?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow that without some form of Question being put.

Sir W. Smithers: Then I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Government wished to make a statement, they could move to report Progress. I should not accept such a Motion otherwise.

Major Gluckstein: I am concerned about this Clause because of something which


happened while the Bill was in preparation. May I remind the Committee of what is in the Clause? If the Commission need machinery, they approach the Minister, and, if he thinks the machinery is all right, they get the machinery. But I think this Clause has an omission; there does not seem to be a duty on the Minister to do anything if the Commission reports in the manner indicated in the Clause. Let me put a practical point. The Minister in his Second Reading speech, which I do not doubt influenced a number of people, said he wanted the Bill for the purpose of the war, that he wanted it to deal with the industrial canteens, of which there were 8,000, that he must have some machinery, and that he wanted to apply the Essential Work Order but could not do so unless there was some regulation. Industrial canteens have adequate machinery. They have set up a Joint Industrial Council, consisting of representatives of the National Industrial Caterers' Association and two trade unions of repute. They have made an agreement as to wages, and those wages compare favourably with those paid in other parts of industry. They are better than the wages paid under agreement made by the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Minister refused to apply the Essential Work Order to these people. He was asked Questions about it in the House, but he has not given a satisfactory reply. That being the position, what guarantee is there for the sections of the industry that put themselves in order and do everything they can to abide by wages rates, that the Minister will take any notice of that? As it appears in this Clause the Minister will do nothing. This is not a theoretical matter; it is a matter of great practical significance on a point which he raised on the Second Reading.
Frankly, his argument about the need for this Measure for war purposes is a bit thin if you take that particular part of it away. Is the Minister able to do anything to help these people? In my submission, he is able to do nothing at all. He ought to bind himself in some way to use his best endeavours to help those people if they need his help. There ought to be some provision by which they can make applications and representations to him and obtain his assistance, not as a matter of charity but as a matter of right. They cannot do it under this Clause. If Questions are put on their behalf in the

House, they will be fobbed off with the cold comfort that the only thing they can hope for is to allow their employers to run their canteens for them. That is a very poor argument to advance to the people in this section of the trade. I hope most sincerely that he will consider the matter and will be prepared to assist the industrial canteens and the trade unions and will do what he can, if the Commission reports favourably, as I think they may, to assist those canteens and the workers in them to attain the objects that they desire.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Establishment of wages boards.)

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out "in writing."
The Minister of Labour has said that he is anxious to avoid having any unnecessary words in the Bill. At best, these words are unnecessary, and at the worst they may cause a considerable amount of trouble. If there is any purpose in their inclusion, as far as I can see it is merely to exclude oral representations to the Commission. It may well be that in the first instance they would prefer to have representations in writing, and they would give notice accordingly, but I cannot see why they should be restricted to receiving written representations. I think it is clear from the latter part of the Sub-section that in their further inquiries they would be entitled to receive oral evidence. I cannot really understand why these words should be included, placing this limitation on the discretion of the Commission.

Mr. Bevin: This is the usual form. Surely the hon. Member would not have people coming up to the Commission asking to be heard. The objections are to be in writing, and the subsequent procedure is absolutely in the hands of the Commission. I have served on any number of Royal Commissions and I have never known any other procedure. It is a pure matter of form.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely the Commission can specify the form in the notice that they issue, and it is unnecessary to have these words.

Sir H. Webbe: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's answer is not quite enough. The Minister has given an answer on the specific point but he has clearly not answered the case put by my hon. Friend. I understand that there is no intention on his part to accept a later Amendment which provides that the Commission, before they make a recommendation, may, at their discretion, hold a formal inquiry. In those circumstances the only suggestion made to the Commission is that they shall receive written representations. There is no suggestion that they shall do more than read the letter or memorandum submitted to them and form a judgment on it. That is not adequate consideration and the Bill ought to make it clear that more than that is intended. We are leaving much to what the Minister has called the common sense of the people who are to operate this novel machinery, and it is about time we began laying down clearly the lines on which we expect the machine to operate. It is not our business to pass an Act of Parliament setting up a new piece of machinery and leave it to form its own procedure with no guidance whatever.

Major Thorneycroft: I had hoped my hon. Friends were trying to improve the Bill and not to put up Amendments of this kind. The suggestion in the Bill, which is a perfectly ordinary procedure adopted in every form of Commission and in every court of law, is that something should be put down on paper first, to enable those concerned to see what it is all about. That is all that is in the Bill. To suggest that people can ring up the Commission, with no record of what is said, and that that is the proper way of approaching the Commission is fantastic, and I hope that the proposal will be rejected.

Major Petherick: I had no intention of intervening but for what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. There is a point of some substance here, odd as it may seem to him. Obviously, before you hear oral evidence, you have to see whether Mr. Snooks, who has sent in a letter, is mad or sane. That is common sense.

Mr. Molson: The Clause says:
The Commission shall consider any written representations made by them within the said period and shall make such further inquiries as they consider necessary.

Major Petherick: I do not see that that meets the case. It surely does not say they can take oral evidence. Surely the word "written" governs the inquiry. There is no suggestion that they may take oral evidence at all.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not share my hon. and gallant Friend's indignation at the intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft). My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken has complained that there is nothing in the Clause as it stands to insist that oral representations should be heard by the Commission. Nor is there anything in the Amendment. The only effect of the Amendment is that the Commission should not be compelled to insist that the representations that are made in the first place, should be made formally and in writing. It does not impose on the Commission any additional duty, and in those circumstances I fail to understand the force of the somewhat heated intervention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick).

Amendment negatived.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Your predecessor in the Chair, Major Milner, was asked whether he would allow a Motion to report Progress to be moved. I speak as a strong supporter of the Bill, and may I suggest, with respect to you and the Government, that it is usual when the Committee sits over its ordinary time for the Government to make some announcement as to how long they propose to sit or how many Clauses they intend to get. I do not know whether in those circumstances you would allow a formal Motion to report Progress to give the Minister an opportunity of making a statement. That would be in accord with the traditions of the House.

Mr. Tinker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have heard lots of rumours about how long we are going to sit, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what is his intention. It would be as much for the benefit of the opposition as of the supporters of the Bill.

The Chairman: Does the Noble Lord move to report Progress?

Earl Winterton: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I hope that there will not be a long discussion on it.

Mr. Bevin: In order to get the Bill through in two days, I had mapped out for to-day that we should reach Clause 12. A good deal of time was taken up earlier in to-day's sitting, but I should like to get four more Clauses to-day.

Sir D. Hacking: So far as I know, there has been no opposition to this Bill which was in any sense unparliamentary. The Debate has taken a very fair course. I would point out to the Government that when we desired on Second Reading to suspend Standing Orders in order that there should be a full Debate, the Government resisted. We did not resist them to-day when they moved the suspension. We are still prepared to go on if necessary, but it would add to the convenience of the Committee if we were not kept unduly late. I do not know whether it will be possible to say now what further time is to be given for the Committee stage, but I would suggest to the Chief Patronage Secretary that if another day were given, there would not be much difficulty in getting the Bill through. Speaking for those who have taken most interest in the Bill, I can say that we would be prepared to carry on for a fourth day, if necessary, and to sit any time of the night in order to finish the Bill on that day.

Mr. E. Walkden: Speaking for those who are anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book, I say that we are anxious to help the Government and to use the time to the best possible advantage. We know that it is no use making appeals to certain people who seem to have all kinds of peculiar objections. [Interruption.] I say deliberately that we cannot understand their objections. We try to follow them, but we know that they are obstructive.

Sir D. Hacking: On a point of Order. Is it Parliamentary to accuse other Members of obstruction?

The Chairman: Since my attention has been drawn to it, I must point out that it is not a Parliamentary expression, and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr. Walkden: If it is objected to by you, Major Milner, I would like to take the opportunity to withdraw it. We are anxious to help the Government in every way possible and to get this Bill carried. We say that two days are quite sufficient allocation of Government time to debate this Bill.

Mr. Denman: Does the Minister seek to get Clauses 6 and 7?

Mr. Bevin: Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Commander Bower: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking). I cannot agree that the Committee stage has gone unduly slowly. I hope that hon. Members will give us the credit for holding our views about this Bill with a sincerity equal to that with which they hold their views. We do not like it, and in our opposition we are only carrying out a perfectly ordinary Parliamentary procedure. It is a long time since we had a controversial Measure of this sort before us, and we must bear in mind that in normal circumstances this Bill would have gone to a Committee upstairs and might have taken six to seven weeks, when every Amendment would have been considered and voted on on its merits. We have not sought to divide the Committee unduly, and the discussions have not been carried on at great length by us. If hon. Members will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will find that a high proportion of contributions have been made by supporters of the Bill. I cannot admit that the opposition to the Bill is in any way unreasonable and I feel with my right hon. Friend that if we were given an extra day, although there are several very controversial portions of the Bill to come, with good will we should get through quite well. I commend that solution to the Government.

Mr. Levy: I do not like the term "opposition to the Bill." I do not like the Bill, and I voted against it. The opposition were out-voted, and the Bill has come to Committee. Is it unreasonable that those who do not like the Bill should endeavour to improve it so that it will be workable? That is the duty of Members of Parliament, and there ought not to be impatience if they carry it out. This is a very controversial Measure. Otherwise 112 Members would not have voted against it.


Another day ought to be given to this Bill in order that it can be examined properly, as legislation ought to be examined, and we ought not to sit unduly late because some hon. Members opposite consider that we who are trying to improve the Bill are obstructive.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Of course, this is a controversial Bill.

Mr. Levy: No, the Government say it is not.

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend said that it was controversial.

Mr. Levy: I say it is.

Mr. Greenwood: To me it is not controversial, because I agree with it. My hon. Friend's view that substantial progress has been made with this Bill after two days of debate is not a view that I share. I am not saying the opposition to the Bill is obstructive; I am too long in the tooth for that; I have done it myself on many occasions in peace-time. I have not opposed Bills, but I have made it rather awkward for the Government of the day within my limited powers. I put it to the Minister of Labour that it is a matter for consideration whether he should put a limit to the progress of the Bill to-day and let the Government state their intentions on the next Sitting Day. I am not putting any demand or making any firm request about giving some little additional time. I myself should deplore it. Those who have points of view to put about the Bill have been putting them for many hours—and they may wish to continue to do so—but if we could put some reasonable limit on the discussion to-day and then let the Government make a statement on the next Sitting Day as to when they think it reasonable to finish the Committee stage, I think that might meet the situation.

Mr. Bevin: If I had a firm undertaking—or in whatever form it was done—that if the Government gave an extra day that would be final, I would consult my colleagues about it. I will not criticise our progress, but it does seem to me to be a little bit slow, with small points and with constant repetition, which I do not criticise, because it is not my business to do so. I can understand long Debates on principles, on big things. If it is the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member

for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) that if the Government give one day in the next series of Sittings for this Bill the Bill will be completed that day, with, if necessary, an extension of time, I will consult my hon. Friends about it. Beyond that, I would be content with getting Clause 5 to-day.

Mr. Denman: In Committee?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Committee.

Sir D. Hacking: I think the right hon. Gentleman is a little greedy in expecting to get Clause 5 in any reasonable time. I am only expressing my own view. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether I would give an undertaking. So far as it is possible for me to give an undertaking—and if I may say so with all due modesty, I think I can carry some weight with my colleagues—I believe that a fourth day in Committee would see this Bill through; but I go further, and I say that if by any chance it is felt that a fourth day would be insufficient, then if the Government suspend Standing Orders we will accept that and see, as far as it is possible to give a guarantee, that the Bill is got through on the fourth day. I think that on that undertaking it really does not matter very much whether we get Clause 5 to-day or adjourn at this moment. That is the pledge I give so far as it is possible for me to give a pledge, and I believe that with a fourth day this Bill would get through the Committee stage without our sitting late.

Earl Winterton: I am going to ask leave to withdraw this Motion. I hope it will not embarrass him, but I should like to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). From the House of Commons point of view he has put the case very well. I hope neither right hon. Gentleman will be annoyed with me when I say with deepest respect to the Minister and to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) that it is obvious that if they would get together behind the Chair in the ordinary way they could come to an arrangement which would meet the situation. One feels, whether one is an opponent or a supporter of the Bill, that it would be unfortunate if on a Measure of this sort, we had anything like an all-night sitting. There would be a good deal of comment outside.

Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," by leave, withdrawn.

Major Gluckstein: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out from "recommendation," to the end of the Sub-section.
In moving this Amendment, I wish to have the opportunity of considering also the next Amendment—in page 3, line 38, to leave out "in his opinion." The two Amendments hang together. The words of the Clause state:
The workers and the employers described in any such order shall be workers to whom this Act applies and their employers and shall be the workers and employers covered by the recommendation, with such variations, if any, as the Minister thinks fit, being variations which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the character of the recommendation.
I am proposing to leave out the words from the word "recommendation," because they are words which give a very wide discretion to the Minister. We are passing a Measure which I understand is to continue after the war. I am not exactly heartened to support the view that a Minister should be allowed to exercise his discretion if "in his opinion" certain variations do not effect important alterations in the character of the recommendation by a case which is reported to-day in the newspapers. There it is recorded that the Minister of Mines used his discretion to take over a mine—lock, stock, and barrel. It was an exercise of discretion which the learned judge who tried the case said he was powerless to interfere with. That may be all right in war-time. There may be in war-time all sorts of occasions when a Minister's opinion of whether matters are important or unimportant ought to be taken, but I should not be at all happy if that power were to continue indefinitely after the war. The Minister is to judge whether a variation effects an important alteration in the character of a recommendation, and I do not like leaving in the word "important." I should have preferred to leave it in the hands of the Commission and let them decide. There are methods by which their decision could be made known to the Minister before it was signed, sealed and delivered, and the Minister could consider it as it were behind the Chair. It is too much to ask—the Commission having made a decision to set up a wages board—that the Minister should

be left to decide whether certain things should be taken out or put in. I do not like that form of legislation, and I ask the Solicitor-General whether there is any precedent for it. If there is, perhaps he will direct my attention to it.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the view put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend that the Committee ought to be chary to delegate, but I ask him to maintain a sense of due proportion as to where the objection to delegation begins. What are we considering in this part of the Clause? The Sub-section begins by saying:
The workers and the employers described in any such order"—
that is the wages board Order that the Minister may make,
shall be workers to whom this Act applies and their employers.
There is no question here of going outside the Act in any way. That is laid down to begin with. Then it says that those workers and their employers
shall be the workers and employers covered by the recommendation.
Then we have the second part:
with such variations, if any, as the Minister thinks fit.
It is clear that there may be a case—again I do not want to go into imaginary cases. My hon. and gallant Friend probably has in his mind the case which I have in mind in which this House had to adjourn, the proceedings upon a whole set of Regulations had to be stopped and the matter had to go back again for reconsideration, because the word "than" appeared printed as "that." Surely for alterations of that sort it is absurd in 1943 to suggest that a Minister of the Crown, subject to the control of the House of Commons, is not to be allowed to make the alteration. My hon. and gallant Friend will say, "But my hon. and learned Friend has taken the best end of the line for himself." I will meet him on that point, and I would ask him to say what is the best method of seeing that the Minister will not go too far along the line. The best method is to lay it down, and that is what we have done in the Clause. We have said:
with such variations, if any, as the Minister thinks fit, being variations which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the character of the recommendation.
Is not that the sensible way?
I come to the last point, which is that that is governed by the words: "in the opinion of the Minister." Let us face the point. If the Minister honestly applies his mind to the question whether the variations do or do not effect important alterations in the character of the recommendation, there is no difficulty in it. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me for precedents, but I say frankly that the sort of precedents that are in my mind are the things with which I am very familiar at the moment, war-time legislation. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand the difficulty. In my position that is what I have to deal with every day; but I may tell him this, and he will probably remember it, that the leading case on the construction of the words "in his opinion" in a Statute is that of the Bishop of London. It was a case upon an ecclesiastical Act, if my memory is correct, where those words came in, and they were construed by the Judicial Committee on appeal from the Court of Arches, Their opinion was left to the authority designated by the Statute and became a leading case in the words. That case was in 1895, and the words have been used quite often since in Acts of the administrative kind.
We have to face the position that a certain amount of delegation must be given. Otherwise it will be impossible to get through the post-war legislation when we have to face it. We have to make up our minds what we can and what we cannot entrust to a Minister. That is the position, and that is what this Committee has to face. When it comes to the question of making an alteration which the Minister thinks does not effect important alterations in classes of workers who are within the Act and have been laid down by the recommendation of the Commission, any reasonable person would, I think, say that that was a fair matter to leave to a Minister and that it was certainly no undue pressing of the rights of the Executive to claim to make as small an alteration as that.

Sir H. Webbe: I do not want to take the time of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—particularly after all the things that have been said, and I consider said quite unjustly, about a group of hon. Members who have taken an interest in the Bill and who have so far not occupied a major part of the time in

the Debate. There is a point to which the Solicitor-General has not addressed himself. In introducing the Bill, the Minister laid very great stress on the importance of the new type of machinery which he was setting up and on the vital position which this novel Commission was to occupy in the administration of the Measure. He stressed repeatedly that this was to be a capable, entirely impartial body, who were to have the power and the opportunity to obtain every possible skilled technical advice so that, when they made recommendations, they might be reasonably sure that the recommendations were sound from the technical and from the practical, common sense and business points of view.
In those circumstances, there should be no occasion for modification of their recommendations on such matters as are contemplated in the Clause, except, as the Solicitor-General has suggested, in quite small things, where obviously Ministers must exercise their discretion; but there is no provision in the Clause or elsewhere by which anyone, either this House or the Commission itself or the courts, will have to judge of the alterations the Minister may have made and of deciding their objection or not.

Mr. Denman: Surely it is just the point that under Clause 15, the Orders made under this clause have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and that that really is the complete safeguard.

Sir H. Webbe: I am afraid that does not disprove the point at all. The Order will be laid before the House but the House will not have the opportunity of seeing what the recommendation of the Commission was. A matter which does seem to be of importance is that the Minister is to have the power to alter a recommendation, provided that, in his opinion, those alterations are not material. I submit that the least that can be done is to provide that where the Minister proposes to make an Order, at variance with a recommendation of the Commission, even in detail, the alteration should be referred to the Commission, so that they could agree with the Minister's view that the alterations were immaterial. I cannot see any objection to that. If the Minister intends to place reliance in the Commission, I am sure he will feel—if only as a matter of courtesy, and certainly as a matter of tidy procedure—that if he


desires to modify a recommendation by the Commission, the least he can do is to ask the Commission whether they concur in his view that the modification is a minor one, which does not affect the recommendation materially.

Mr. Molson: I am glad the hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) has suddenly acquired a complete and absolute confidence in the impartiality and detachment of the Commission. I had a little doubt in my mind as to whether he had that confidence. I feel that in the valuable and impartial work this Commission will do——[An HON. MEMBER: "We do not know what it is going to be."] Exactly, and in spite of that fact the hon. Member has that confidence in the Minister of Labour.

Sir H. Webbe: I have accepted the Minister's estimate of what the Commission is going to be at its best.

Mr. Molson: Yes—a very safe thing to do, if I may say so. I hope the Committee will not take any longer over this point. I cannot feel that it is a matter of very great importance. We can have reasonable confidence that no Minister of Labour would make any substantial change in any proposal put forward by the Commission. In any case, I would remind the hon. Member for the Abbey Division that under an Amendment, which is to be moved later, the Commission will present an annual report, and anything of this kind would certainly be referred to, if the Commission were not satisfied with amendments which the Minister had made.

Sir J. Mellor: I appreciated the clear exposition of the Solicitor-General, but I do feel that the words "in his opinion" are very objectionable and can only be designed to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. He said that in a case of this sort we must be prepared to leave something to the decision of the Minister. Without those words, the wording of this Sub-section would run:
…as the Minister thinks fit, being variations which do not affect important alterations in the character of the recommendation.
If that decision is left with the Minister, I cannot see why "in his opinion" should be added unless it is for the very definite purpose of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court. If those words are omitted and it

is considered that the Minister has acted unreasonably or without due and proper cause, his action could be challenged in the courts. I cannot see why that safeguard cannot be preserved.

Major Gluckstein: I am not at all happy about the statement by the Solicitor-General. I may be the last person who is going to take a stand against bureaucratic government and the ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts, but I say without hesitation that what we are prepared to put up with in war time from Ministers, ought not to be carried over to the time of peace, if our liberties are to be restored as a result of victory. If we start to allow Ministers to do this—because this will serve as a precedent—in due course, Government draftsmen will put these things into Bills and if they get away with it, it will be a precedent for the next time, for some other Measure. This will act as a precedent for legislation in the planned paradise which we are to get. It will depend on Ministers and the courts will have no jurisdiction. If the Committee want this provision in this form they will have it. I have uttered my warning and I hope I shall not have to come here at some later date and say, "You were told about this. Now the courts can do nothing, and no one can do anything."

Sir J. Mellor: May I put this point to the Solicitor-General? If the words "in his opinion" are left in, is there legally any limit to the variations which the Minister can produce?

The Solicitor-General: If the words "in his opinion" are in, then the only interference possible on the part of the courts would be on the question of good faith or bad faith. I have not thought out whether a right of prohibition would lie, or what the proper remedy would be, but he can take it that the court could only interfere on the question of good or bad faith.

Major Gluckstein: Where would the onus be for proof of that?

The Solicitor-General: It is very difficult to say, but if my hon. Friend will tell me what proceedings he has in mind——

Major Gluckstein: Supposing there was a writ of certiorari, where would the onus lie?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member is aware of the meaning of good and bad faith in matters like, on the one hand, the non-exercise of power and, on the other hand, the exercise of power. He understands all the connotations of good faith and bad faith as well as I do. That is the first point, the limit of the court. Apart from that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is of course the Parliamentary function, and I suggest that this Committee is not so weak that it cannot exercise Parliamentary sanction against the wrongful use of an administrative act. I want to issue my protest against the suggestions that have been put about that the Parliamentary sanction is not effective. I suggest it is effective and that it is adequate to deal with this matter.

Sir H. Webbe: Will the Solicitor-General tell me how Parliament can possibly exercise any judgment on an alteration when they have only seen an altered document and not the original copy?

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'in,' in line 38, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Major Gluckstein: I beg to move, in page 3, line 48, at the end to add:
except that the recommendation shall not again be referred back by the Minister to the Commission.
Under the power given by this Subsection, there is a power in the Minister to go on re-submitting a matter to the Commission, presumably until he gets such answer as he wishes. That I do not agree to.
The Clause says:
Where the Minister receives a wages board recommendation, he may, if he thinks fit, refer it back to the Commission and the Commission shall thereupon reconsider it having regard to any observations made by the Minister and may, if they think fit, re-submit it to the Minister either without amendments or with such amendments as they think fit having regard to those observations; and where a recommendation is so re-submitted, the like proceedings may be had thereon as in the case of an original recommendation.
This Amendment seeks to allow that process to happen once, and once only. If the Minister and the Commission cannot get it right after one re-submission, they will not be doing their duty properly. I cannot understand why the power to

continue re-submitting should be wanted by the Minister unless he felt that by that process he could bring a recalcitrant Commission to heel, by wearing them out, so that they might in the end give way against their better judgment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): The Committee has accepted the principle that it is a good thing, in the event of a recommendation being made and the Minister finding that it needs some slight alteration, that he should be able to go back to the Commission and have it amended. The suggestion here is that it is possible that that can happen twice. I suggest that if it is a good thing for it to happen, it is just as well to be prepared for it to happen twice. The suggestion is that a recalcitrant Commission might be brought to heel by a Minister constantly referring back to them a proposal which he did not like. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is an unworthy suggestion."] It is an unworthy suggestion in the first instance, but it is adequately covered by the fact that an annual report of the Commission's proceedings is to be submitted. I cannot imagine any Minister following the practice which has been suggested, when such conduct would be subject to a discussion in this House. I do not think that in such circumstances a Minister could remain in office ten minutes after the report had come out.

Amendment negatived.

Major Gluckstein: Major Gluckstein rose——

An Hon. Member: What, again?

Major Gluckstein: I hear a voice saying "Again?" but I would point out that I am not selecting the Amendments to be called.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 48, at the end, to add:
Every copy of any order of the Minister made under this section printed by the King's Printer or under the superintendence or authority of His Majesty's Stationery Office shall have printed upon it a statement of the date on which the order comes into force.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make quite sure that when an Order is made, the date shall be certificated in this manner, so that there shall be no doubt whatever of the actual date on which the Order has come into force. I believe that there have been cases where, in the absence of such certification, doubt has


arisen as to the date on which the Order has come into force. It is to avoid that possibility that this Amendment is moved.

The Solicitor-General: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend's fears are of any substance as the procedure stands at the moment. As he knows, an Order comes into force on the day that it is made unless the Order itself provides otherwise. The scheme laid down in Clause 15 is that the Order is made and then laid before Parliament, and Parliament is given the opportunity of expressing its view upon it within 40 days.

Captain P. Macdonald: When does the 40 days' period begin?

The Solicitor-General: On the day the Order is laid. It does not begin to run until then, so that is all to the advantage of those who want to question it. I do not think, in those circumstances, it is necessary to have an express provision such as is suggested. We have the date on which the Order is made. It will come into force on that day, unless otherwise provided in the Order, and then the ordinary Parliamentary procedure applies.

Major Gluckstein: On that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir D. Hacking: Before we pass from this Clause, which I consider to be a very important one, I think it right that someone on this side should offer a few observations. This, to my mind, is the main operative Clause. It sets up, in effect, the wages board. The whole principle for dealing with wages, conditions of employment and other matters is dependent on this Clause. That principle is the wage-board system. In the Second Reading Debate I said that there was no real demand for this system. Since then, what I said has been reinforced by those who claim to represent the workers in this industry. I am quite satisfied, from what I have read, that the trade-union leaders themselves are only half-hearted in their support for the wage board system. Hon. Members above the Gangway probably know Mr. Beardsworth. He is, I understand, the assistant organising secretary of the National Union of Distributive and

Allied Workers. On 6th March Mr. Beardsworth made a speech, from which I have some extracts. He said that many trade unions had in the past made efforts to organise workers in the catering industry, but without success. He could not remember any trade union ever waging a successful dispute in the catering industry. He went on:
We have never been able successfully to organise hotel and catering workers, or to secure any agreement on their behalf. We usually say that it cannot be done because of the tipping system. There is a good deal of truth in that.
Then he said:
Will the Bevin Bill help us in the direction we want to go? The Commission which Mr. Bevin proposes to set up will really take the place of what, under the Trade Board Act, will be done by public inquiry. Trade Unions such as my own have considered the matter, and they have decided to support Mr. Bevin's Bill, but it would be wrong—
This is the point I want to emphasise—
if I were not to indicate that in the trade union movement there is considerable difference of opinion regarding the value of statutory regulation of wages. We believe that, on balance, the trade board system is better than no regulation at all.
That, apparently, is the highest testimony that can be given by a very prominent member of the trade union organisation to this system of the wages board.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that in the speech to which he has referred there is also a gross accusation against the catering trade employers?

Sir D. Hacking: I am dealing with a specific point. We are dealing now with the setting-up of wages boards.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that in the statement of this trade union organiser, with reference to the very great difficulty in organising the catering trade workers, he has read out an accusation against the employers who have barred trade unionism in the catering industry all their lives?

Sir D. Hacking: I am personally rather in favour of a trade union organisation and that type of bargaining power, I would much prefer it myself to wages boards. I am surprised that the hon. Member says that the reason why trade unions have not been able to get any foot-


hold is because of the action of the employers. I honestly do not believe that, but that it is because the workers in this industry are not anxious to join the trade union. This is a free country, and, as far as I know, there is nothing to compel a worker in any industry to remain outside a trade union. He can join a trade union if he cares to do so. I am a little surprised that even prominent trade unionists in this Committee would support a wage board system of this kind, because under the existing law a trade union leader can go to a worker and say to him, "Will you join my union? If you do, I can promise to get for you better wages and shorter hours." But when this wage board system comes into operation, what does the trade union leader say to the workers in this industry? He says, "Will you join my union? I cannot promise you better conditions, shorter hours and better wages. That has all been taken out of my hands."

Mr. G. Griffiths: He never says anything of the kind.

Sir D. Hacking: I am not quoting what anybody else has said. These happen to be my own words, and an opinion that I was expressing. I hope that I am entitled to express my opinion in this House as well as anybody else. I say frankly that I am not opposed to, and, in fact, I would favour a trade union organisation and collective bargaining of that kind to this system. I do not like this system, but let me complete the quotation. He continues:
 Given anything like a measure of organisation we would infinitely prefer the J.I.C. method, but if such organisation does not exist, the trade board or wages board system is desirable because we think it is better than no regulation at all.
That is the testimony that one gets from a very prominent trade union leader, and that is the blessing which is given to the system which is being perpetrated in this Clause. I cannot understand the trade union movement or representatives in this Committee being in favour of this particular Measure, and especially the Clause which we are discussing. The Minister of Labour is a very far-seeing man. I am not, I hope, paying him a compliment in saying that he is a far-seeing man.

Mr. Bevin: And long-suffering.

Sir D. Hacking: And long-suffering, probably brought upon his own shoulders very largely. I do not think it is all hon. Members on this side of the Committee. He may be long-suffering and may live to regret it, because long-suffering sometimes means long sitting, but I hope it will not mean that. I think that at the back of the mind of the Minister of Labour is the wish to drive workers into a trade union organisation because in fact he himself prefers that of his two systems. The only thing to which I object is compulsion being placed upon the free citizens of this country to do things which they do not desire to do. I will conclude by quoting from a letter which I received only this morning from a trade unionist, whose name I cannot disclose, because when we are talking about victimisation by employers, I fear that, if I disclose the name of this individual, there could be victimisation from other people than employers. [Interruption.] When it is said that there might be victimisation by employers, I do not see any reason why I should not say that there might be victimisation of another kind. Here is a letter from a trade union worker. He talks a good deal about blackmailing, and I do not want to go into that matter. He says that he has been a member of a trade union all his life and that this Bill will enable trade union officials to lurk around hotels and persuade and coerce employees to join. This is the important part of his letter:
I have been a member of a trade union for more years than I care to remember, but I object to compulsory membership.
I submit that, if this Clause has the effect of driving people into compulsory membership of a trade union, then it is wrong. I repeat that personally I would prefer collective organisation to something being done and forced upon the industry, but it would be parlous for me to attempt to divide the Committee on the Clause. I know that the Committee will accept the Clause, and consequently I do not intend to press it to a Division, but I must say that I resent very much the indirect pressure that is being brought upon workers in the catering industry to compel them to join a trade union.

Major Gluckstein: I am rather disquieted that the machinery that is laid down in the Trade Board Act, and which purports to be followed in this Clause, has


not been followed as closely as it might be. I will tell the Minister exactly what I mean. Where there are objections, and representations are made under the trade board procedure, the Minister is bound to hold an inquiry. It is laid down in the Act. He is not bound to do it for a frivolous objection, but if there is a substantial representation made against the trade board, he has to hold an inquiry, and it has to be a public inquiry. My complaint is that there is no protection in this Clause, and I emphasise the point, because a vast deal of mud has been thrown into Parliamentary affairs before this Bill came on and a great deal while the Bill has been before the House. A great number of accusations have been made against a number of people in the industry. I should have thought that the least that could have been done, and the fairest thing, would have been to have insisted in this Clause that if there was to be an inquiry, it must be a public inquiry. We wanted a public inquiry and to have the matter thoroughly thrashed out before the Bill was introduced, and to have no hole-and-corner business, but that was denied us. I say that under this Clause there is no power to compel a public inquiry, and I think that power should be there. At any rate for the time being I think it just as well that there should be words making it compulsory to have a public inquiry so that this thing can be thrashed out. Do not let us have any more of these allegations that people who pay their employees in a different manner are behaving improperly. There is no such right in this Bill; there is only discretion, and it ought to be made more clear.

Mr. Bevin: I would like to make only two observations. Reference has been made to mud throwing in connection with this Bill. Well, so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, the whole agitation and statements that have produced this mud throwing have come from the opponents of the Bill. We have not issued a public statement on the Bill, except for what we said in this House. The charges made when the Bill was designed, and when I met the trade——

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is not in order in going into detail about that.

Mr. Bevin: Then I will only say that this Clause gives adequate protection

whether for a private or a public inquiry, and the Commission can determine which it will have. All I know is that there are many sections of the trade coming forward now asking to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Mander: I want to make only one comment. Reference has been made to certain remarks made by the members of the alternative Government who sit behind me, namely, that it will be compulsory to join a trade union. Surely the point is that workers will get compulsorily the benefits which a trade union would give if it were possible. It is because that is not possible that this Measure has had to be brought in.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Clause 4 definitely states that if the Commission find it necessary they can establish a wages board. It seems to me that some people have employed other people to take action for them. It appears as though they are afraid of this matter coming to light.

Captain P. Macdonald: On a point of Order. Evidently there is in the hon. Member's mind some idea of making definite charges about some people having vested interests. Would the hon. Member mind saying who those Members are?

The Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) ought to continue his speech on that line.

Mr. Griffiths: Then I will only say that unless this Clause stands part of the Bill it is no good. These people are desirous that this Clause shall not stand part of the Bill.

Captain P. Macdonald: Who are "these people?"

Mr. Griffiths: The people who have been talking about it. They are interested in it. Under the Chairman's Ruling I cannot mention them, but I have only to turn round to see who they are, without mentioning any names. It is time some of us said something about it. I hope the Minister will stand by Clause 4 as it is. If he does, we shall back him to the hilt.

Sir H. Webbe: I want to make a brief protest before this Clause is passed, as it will be, unless we act contrary to the will of the House as expressed on the Second Reading. I wish to protest against this Clause, which allows for the establish-


ment of wages boards when conditions of labour and pay are entirely satisfactory. The absurdity and illogicality of that are seen when we come to the next Clause, which provides that if a wages board is unnecessary, it can be abolished. I suggest that it is utterly illogical to set up a wages board if it is not necessary to do so.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.